Now That Trump's President... (not any more!)

[cichlisuite]

4 hours ago, very honest said:

obama's achievements are significant. the global economy was in freefall, and obama oversaw a stemming of the collapse, and a recovery from the recession.

Stemming of the collapse by throwing money at the problem that caused it? While I don't wish to imply Obama should head the reform of the financial markets (but what was his Change slogan all about then?), his signature at the dotted line was all that was needed.

Quote

not gonna rehash the entire 8 years, but if you want to debate many of the issues, you'll find i'm ready to offer obama-supportive positions. regarding the nobel, i don't see the logic behind that being an argument against obama. the nobel committee is an independent entity and they can do what they want for whatever reasons they want. i think they wanted to celebrate an end to the bush era, which obama's '08 opponent, mccain, proposed to largely extend. obama got the nobel basically right after entering office, it seemed to represent his electoral win more than any presidential achievement. although it did also coincide with his swift actions to effectively stem the economic collapse. bush invaded iraq on dubious pretenses, and then precipitated a years-long civil war & occupation environment, there, with vast mercenary armies that were not accountable to military law. winning an election running against that does seem like an achievement in the realm of world peace. and it wasn't an easy election, political campaigns are heady challenges, and obama carried out a very impressive campaign.

I certainly regard Obama as one of the better US presidents, and I did not use the Nobel prize as an argument. I was merely using it to point at the larger problem:

The Nobel Committee might be independent, however, they have their share of dubious nominations -- I'm looking at Henry Kissinger. I think the circumstances of Kissinger receiving the prize are suspiciously similar to the Obama's, whereas, Kissinger was actually part of the problem (and so even more WTF). Your rationale for Obama's nomination is not holding up for me though. Why give the prize in advance? It all seemed rushed, or if I dare saying, a PR stunt for the USA. There was no de-escalation of hostilities, but that's a whole another problem, because what was started by Bush could not be finished (resolved worthy of a peace prize) by Obama even if he received a third mandate.

16 minutes ago, ignatius said:

it was trump's birthday so instead of trump getting happy birthday messages of support people decided to show love for obama. that's how it started. 

I see. That's swell.

[may be rude]

26 minutes ago, cichlisuite said:

5 hours ago, very honest said:

obama's achievements are significant. the global economy was in freefall, and obama oversaw a stemming of the collapse, and a recovery from the recession.

Stemming of the collapse by throwing money at the problem that caused it? While I don't wish to imply Obama should head the reform of the financial markets (but what was his Change slogan all about then?), his signature at the dotted line was all that was needed.

Quote

not gonna rehash the entire 8 years, but if you want to debate many of the issues, you'll find i'm ready to offer obama-supportive positions. regarding the nobel, i don't see the logic behind that being an argument against obama. the nobel committee is an independent entity and they can do what they want for whatever reasons they want. i think they wanted to celebrate an end to the bush era, which obama's '08 opponent, mccain, proposed to largely extend. obama got the nobel basically right after entering office, it seemed to represent his electoral win more than any presidential achievement. although it did also coincide with his swift actions to effectively stem the economic collapse. bush invaded iraq on dubious pretenses, and then precipitated a years-long civil war & occupation environment, there, with vast mercenary armies that were not accountable to military law. winning an election running against that does seem like an achievement in the realm of world peace. and it wasn't an easy election, political campaigns are heady challenges, and obama carried out a very impressive campaign.

I certainly regard Obama as one of the better US presidents, and I did not use the Nobel prize as an argument. I was merely using it to point at the larger problem:

The Nobel Committee might be independent, however, they have their share of dubious nominations -- I'm looking at Henry Kissinger. I think the circumstances of Kissinger receiving the prize are suspiciously similar to the Obama's, whereas, Kissinger was actually part of the problem (and so even more WTF). Your rationale for Obama's nomination is not holding up for me though. Why give the prize in advance? It all seemed rushed, or if I dare saying, a PR stunt for the USA. There was no de-escalation of hostilities, but that's a whole another problem, because what was started by Bush could not be finished (resolved worthy of a peace prize) by Obama even if he received a third mandate.

the financial bailout and the auto bailout were loans which were promptly repaid. unlike trump's bailout of the soybean industry, which was a huge giveaway of tens of billions. and that was the direct result of his failed tariff war with china. also unlike the recent 600 BILLION dollar corporate bailout for the covid economic collapse. again, a give-away, not loans. trump's secretary mnuchin recently stated they WILL NOT DISCLOSE THE RECIPIENTS OF that, reversing their earlier claim. reporting is already emerging that trump donor companies are receiving some of that money. 

i'm not really interested in defending the nobel committee's giving obama a peace prize. i laid out a rationale that makes sense to me and i think it's plain enough. in addition to that, i think they wanted to encourage him to live up to his own hype.

i would disagree with your claim that hostilities did not de-escalate under obama. on the contrary, i think they certainly did, in iraq. '07 was one of the worst years for the civil war. by the end of obama's term, the situation was much closer to normalized. iraq had united in fighting back isis, successfully. in syria, obama opted for a restrained but calculated and effective approach. in libya, it was a NATO action resulting from the UN vote and the US insisted on not leading the operation. places that could have flamed up, such as syria and iran, instead the US navigated a difficult path, carefully. in syria, assad's chemical weapons were removed. with iran, as mentioned, the deal was struck, dramatically reducing tensions in the region. 

that's not to say everything went perfectly. drone technology advanced under obama, and numerous errant drone strikes caused inadvertent collateral damage. i'm not here to make excuses for that, but if you hold the obama foreign policy in relation to that of bush, i think it looks like someone cleaning up a mess and carefully strategizing in difficult scenarios, compared with a foolhardy cabal of reckless warmongers rampaging in the middle east with the US defense apparatus. 

compare obama's foreign policy with trump, it looks like an actual US president versus a corrupt conman selling out national interests for personal gain.

Edited June 15, 2020 by very honest

[Limo]

Obama was a bland(*), ineffective establishment democrat president.

He just got really lucky in who he succeeded and who succeeded him.

 

 

(*) so bland even Oprah could endorse him.

[Candiru]

His biggest faults were with foreign policy. He had a very passive approach and ignored a lot of good advice from more experienced people on these matters and smugly brushed them off. 

Remember the “Russian reset” and that silly reset button Hillary gave the Russian foreign minister Lavrov as a stupid gag gift? Uuuuuhhhhgghhhhhh

Lavrov: “actually, it means recharge”

[MaartenVC]

I liked Obama.
He was able to make complete sentences.

[EdamAnchorman]

2 hours ago, MaartenVC said:

I liked Obama.
He was able to make complete sentences.

Yeah that's how far the bar has been lowered.  I thought we bottomed out with puppet dummy W. Bush, but obviously the GOP are willing to drag this country into oblivion.

[dingformung]

Finally a good decision:

Ciao yanks 

[chenGOD]

2 hours ago, dingformung said:

Finally a good decision:

Ciao yanks 

South Koreans looking to become juvenile delinquents.

[cichlisuite]

19 hours ago, very honest said:

the financial bailout and the auto bailout were loans which were promptly repaid.

It doesn't matter. The market crashed because of criminal speculations. In this case the government acted as a rich daddy paying bailout for his delinquent children in jail. "Free market" doctrine exists in order to relinquish responsibility, nothing else. Financial exploitation of the masses and markets is institutionalized. What kind of Change is that?

 

Quote

unlike trump's bailout of the soybean industry, which was a huge giveaway of tens of billions. and that was the direct result of his failed tariff war with china. also unlike the recent 600 BILLION dollar corporate bailout for the covid economic collapse. again, a give-away, not loans. trump's secretary mnuchin recently stated they WILL NOT DISCLOSE THE RECIPIENTS OF that, reversing their earlier claim. reporting is already emerging that trump donor companies are receiving some of that money.

Even worse. But I don't understand why are you writing as if I'm defending the orange degenerate.

 

Quote

i'm not really interested in defending the nobel committee's giving obama a peace prize. i laid out a rationale that makes sense to me and i think it's plain enough. in addition to that, i think they wanted to encourage him to live up to his own hype.

The fact still remains though. Even if you choose to turn a blind eye to it.

 

Quote

i would disagree with your claim that hostilities did not de-escalate under obama. on the contrary, i think they certainly did, in iraq. '07 was one of the worst years for the civil war. by the end of obama's term, the situation was much closer to normalized. iraq had united in fighting back isis, successfully. in syria, obama opted for a restrained but calculated and effective approach. in libya, it was a NATO action resulting from the UN vote and the US insisted on not leading the operation. places that could have flamed up, such as syria and iran, instead the US navigated a difficult path, carefully. in syria, assad's chemical weapons were removed. with iran, as mentioned, the deal was struck, dramatically reducing tensions in the region. 

I think you're confusing the dynamic of a battlefield as if Obama himself personally influenced its outcome. What happened during time of Obama would have happened even if McCain was in office. The situation in Iraq was never stabilized, and the way it was and is handled (by installing a puppet government), it would never stabilize. Proxy wars are no lesser evil. They still destroy a nation and create a void that is filled with factions struggling for power, and deep resentment. Even if you manage to seize fire and remove much of the occupation force, the struggle for power remains. It just transforms. You speak of "tensions in the region" as if those were not directly stirred up by US foreign policy and covert operations. Assad's chemical weapons were 'removed' because the country was threatened and then bombed into oblivion by a coalition force (this time even Russia got a piece of the pie).

You need to understand that the conflict in this wider region is an imperialistic move, not a "we are good guys, saving you from the bad guys" move. And whatever political and rhetorical mumbo jumbo you use, it will never change this fact.

The conflict in the Middle East must be looked from the day when Iraq/Iran went through the religious revolution. This was then a perfect storm to create a basis for the first US invasion of Iraq (the first Gulf War), then the second invasion. That was the dirty work that had to be done, but then Obama came in just in time to give all this adventure a more human face. A PR stunt. Throw in the Nobel Peace prize and the charade is done. A circus.

 

Quote

that's not to say everything went perfectly. drone technology advanced under obama, and numerous errant drone strikes caused inadvertent collateral damage. i'm not here to make excuses for that, but if you hold the obama foreign policy in relation to that of bush, i think it looks like someone cleaning up a mess and carefully strategizing in difficult scenarios, compared with a foolhardy cabal of reckless warmongers rampaging in the middle east with the US defense apparatus.

Don't even get me started on drones. Drones came in solely to minimize american human casualties on the ground. The ethnical, human cleansing still had to be done.

 

Quote

compare obama's foreign policy with trump, it looks like an actual US president versus a corrupt conman selling out national interests for personal gain.

No man. You need to look at the entire invasion of the Middle East as an effort of personal gain for USA and her allies (Saudi Arabia and Israel). Different presidents, different way of dealing with it. Softer vs. harder approach etc. But the JOB still needs to be done. Obama had to win because under McCain it would seem to much like Bush Texan Yeehaw riding the laser guiding bombs.

[may be rude]

58 minutes ago, cichlisuite said:

I think you're confusing the dynamic of a battlefield as if Obama himself personally influenced its outcome. What happened during time of Obama would have happened even if McCain was in office. The situation in Iraq was never stabilized, and the way it was and is handled (by installing a puppet government), it would never stabilize. Proxy wars are no lesser evil. They still destroy a nation and create a void that is filled with factions struggling for power, and deep resentment. Even if you manage to seize fire and remove much of the occupation force, the struggle for power remains. It just transforms. You speak of "tensions in the region" as if those were not directly stirred up by US foreign policy and covert operations. Assad's chemical weapons were 'removed' because the country was threatened and then bombed into oblivion by a coalition force (this time even Russia got a piece of the pie).

You need to understand that the conflict in this wider region is an imperialistic move, not a "we are good guys, saving you from the bad guys" move. And whatever political and rhetorical mumbo jumbo you use, it will never change this fact.

The conflict in the Middle East must be looked from the day when Iraq/Iran went through the religious revolution. This was then a perfect storm to create a basis for the first US invasion of Iraq (the first Gulf War), then the second invasion. That was the dirty work that had to be done, but then Obama came in just in time to give all this adventure a more human face. A PR stunt. Throw in the Nobel Peace prize and the charade is done. A circus.

are you asserting that iranian threats against israel were somehow caused by the US? i think you're wandering out beyond reality.

assad's chemical weapons weren't actually removed as a result of strikes. the US applied pressure, and assad's daddy, putin, said he's got to get rid of them, after he gased a thousand of his people. 

i'm familiar with the US imperialistic narrative. it's a cartoonish simplification. the bush clan are entitled, immoral, corrupt oil tycoons, and that has been a big factor in actions under bush 1 and bush 2. 

58 minutes ago, cichlisuite said:

No man. You need to look at the entire invasion of the Middle East as an effort of personal gain for USA and her allies (Saudi Arabia and Israel). Different presidents, different way of dealing with it. Softer vs. harder approach etc. But the JOB still needs to be done. Obama had to win because under McCain it would seem to much like Bush Texan Yeehaw riding the laser guiding bombs.

the USA is not an entity. it's a churning rotation of idiots. there is not the capacity for a decades-long motive. if you want to imagine a deep state, i can tell you that the state & defense apparati operate under terminology of national interests, like standing by allies and minimizing threats to energy supply. before you jump to the conclusion that this USA demon greedily thirsts for energy access, i will point out that your USA demon actually restrains itself from seizing energy assets when it has the ability to. 

many sources out there don't bother to dig up verifiable facts, and instead weave a pallatable narrative. everyone likes a bad guy, and the US  has been the world's superpower for decades. clearly there have been major problems, but i think it's wrong to ascribe an underlying malicious intent. i think bad actors sometimes rise to power and act badly, while the system itself works to weed them out.

putin's organized crime infrastructure, on the other hand, seems to be deliberately practicing imperialism. look at ukraine, he just took crimea, and now he's trying to chew off eastern ukraine. the occupation of georgia was a trial run, to see how the international community would react to imperialistic aggression. he saw that the inhibition of total war allowed him to do it, but that the theater where he needed to deploy in order to get away with it satisfactorily was the information space. look at the trickery he's infusing into the global internet, to weaken governmental systems built on principles of justice, which threaten his tyrannical hold on power. in the 21st century, imperialism will be led by a front of disinformation.

the US values allowing voices to be heard. russia silences and imprisons inconvenient voices. that is a good indicator of which has imperialist and authoritarian intent.

Edited June 16, 2020 by very honest

[zero]

4 hours ago, randomsummer said:

Yeah that's how far the bar has been lowered.  I thought we bottomed out with puppet dummy W. Bush, but obviously the GOP are willing to drag this country into oblivion.

so true. I never hated W, just thought he never should have been president and was not a very good leader. trump barely seems human compared to W. he's so far down the ladder that I can't even elicit hate, because genuine hatred is usually reserved for a person. donald is like a cardboard cut out of a person. a cartoon scooby-doo villain crossed with a pile of animal crap you just stepped in, and annoyingly takes forever to scrape off.

[ambermonk]

What's more disturbing is how he managed to garner such a cult following. Granted decades of hate-grooming of his base by FOX News & Rush Limbaugh drivel and sermons by evangelical nut-jobs are major factors, but still.

Edited June 16, 2020 by timbre monke

[Nebraska]

Quote

Paul Whelan, a U.S. citizen who was arrested in Moscow in 2018 on charges of espionage, has been found guilty in a closed trial and sentenced to 16 years in prison in a case that has strained relations between the two countries.

The case has strained ties between Moscow and Washington and fueled speculation of a prisoner swap.

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/15/876966569/american-paul-whelan-held-in-russia-on-spy-charges-is-sentenced-to-16-years

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/06/15/russia-sentences-us-ex-marine-to-16-years-in-prison-in-spy-trial-a70570

[zero]

5 minutes ago, timbre monke said:

What's more disturbing is how he managed to garner such a cult following. 

absolutely. amazing how all it really took was making a joke about becoming president to then tweeting out a bunch of stupid shit, getting in front of crowds and rambling nonsensically, telling everyone he's right and they're wrong (with no proof of anything), and BAM - millions of people responded like he's some fucking messiah that can come in and save them from out of touch Washington. the snake oil salesman comparison may be a little stale, but damn, he is proof that that gimmick still works.

[Nebraska]

great stuff from the great leader big T. since most cops are never afraid when detaining suspects, it's unlikely they'll ever need to use a chokehold ever again.

police problems: solved!

[zero]

^ more nonsense from that:

Quote

In his speech, Trump did not address the racism issue directly. Instead, he suggested the repeated instances of officers killing unarmed black Americans rested on a small number of individual officers.

"They're very tiny. I use the word tiny," he said. "It's a very small percentage. But nobody wants to get rid of them more than the really good and great police officers."

TINY HANDS

[QBLA]

For some reason, I imagined him looking at his penis while saying that.

[ignatius]

8 minutes ago, QBLA said:

For some reason, I imagined him looking at his penis while saying that.

i still can't believe how weird and awkward he is.. every time i think he can't be that weird he out does himself w/weirdness. 

[zero]

https://www.axios.com/trump-tulsa-rally-mass-crowds-convention-test-f2fd68a6-6427-4908-ae84-6f25ac0ccd1f.html

Quote

President Trump's campaign plans to turn this weekend's Tulsa rally into a massive pro-Trump festival complete with musical acts, and it's flying in high-profile backers and camera crews to show the world the fervency of his supporters.

• The Bank of Oklahoma (BOK) Center, where the indoor event will be held, holds 19,000 people, and the area next to it where the second stage will be set up can hold tens of thousands more.

The big picture: While Trump is scheduled to speak inside the BOK Center, additional staging is to be set up outside for other speakers and performers.

could it be BoC at the BoK center?

[Nebraska]

^^ not sure. new campaign ads seem to point more obscure industrial or metal acts

 

[ignatius]

 

[joshuatxuk]

On 6/16/2020 at 11:50 AM, zero said:

so true. I never hated W, just thought he never should have been president and was not a very good leader. trump barely seems human compared to W. he's so far down the ladder that I can't even elicit hate, because genuine hatred is usually reserved for a person. donald is like a cardboard cut out of a person. a cartoon scooby-doo villain crossed with a pile of animal crap you just stepped in, and annoyingly takes forever to scrape off.

Both Obama and Bush, while wildly opposite in optics and their political base, were still both neoliberal presidents and both sincere and self-described statesman. I can't absolve W ever for Iraq, corporate socialism, and religious right push that both HW and Reagan also perpetuated but it's wild that he worked for bipartisan social welfare programs, immigration reform, and overtly pushed against xenophobia towards Muslims after 9/11.  It really isn't hard to miss his basic fundamental attitude of being the president for all Americans, even if it wasn't matched by his policies.

Trump has blown up all of that. I've said it before but I think it's important to note that moderate and liberal atonement of Bush, McCain, and past Republicans has been paralleled by right-wing disdain for those same figures. The Trump CHUDs I both know and see in various manners (i.e. online, on tv) LOVE to bash any conservative that is educated, experienced, principled, etc. to absurd levels. I've seen them call Mattis a disgrunted RHINO and deep state agent. I've seen them dismiss McCain's combat record. I've seen them talk about how much they can't stand the new Pope. Trump's actual policies are right-wing, fascist, corporatism, and authoritarian. His campaign in 2016 was vague populism with right-wing meat and extremist dog whistles. His base is a gross combination of both, and it's literally anti-ideology. It's cynical, selfish, delusional, contradictory. If you try to articulate it in goals and ideas you don't get anything resembling a clear right-wing agenda but rather the conspiratorial melange that is QAnon. That's why we miss Obama and Bush so much, even though it can be argued they just worsened to the system and status quo. They were a baseline of basic decency, stability, and occasional reform.

edit: also there's been a shift if establishment GOP and their base immediately excising and washing their hands of far right rhetoric and ideology, even if many in the ranks secretly believed in it, and now openly tolerating it or encouraging it. The stuff being parroted by Trump and many Republicans now without blowback even in the most dark days of Bush and Obama would have been limited to a small number of fringe members in that party. There really hasn't been anything like this before.

Edited June 18, 2020 by joshuatxuk

[hijexx]

 

[zero]

14 minutes ago, joshuatxuk said:

The Trump CHUDs I both know and see in various manners (i.e. online, on tv) LOVE to bash any conservative that is educated, experienced, principled, etc. to absurd levels. I've seen them call Mattis a disgrunted RHINO and deep state agent. I've seen them dismiss McCain's combat record. I've seen them talk about how much they can't stand the new Pope.

they just really seem to be at war with common sense more so than anything Mattis/McCain represent don't they. IMO fox news is largely to blame for this. the angry, delusional, bashing everything discourse that spews out from their commentators is what has led to this brainwashing, mainly for the non-internet savvy crowd. it is insanity inducing trying to get through a fox news clip online. no wonder those people who sit and watch that crap all day have turned into the mindless trump supporters they are. zombies. all of them. I doubt a single rational thought goes through their brains all day, except like self-preservation, taking a shit, etc.  

[QBLA]

88?

https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/88