“I think it’s going to require a little bit less navel-gazing and a little less whining and being in fetal positions. And it’s going to require Democrats to just toughen up,” Obama said at the fundraiser

  • Doom@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    The baby killing machine is always running. Lives being lost is awful and so is war.

    But you are all being extremely disingenuous about it. Read how people act on this matter, as if Obama is stroking himself over killing kids.

    This is why people genuinely fall for pizza gate. Cause people are too stupid to understand hyperbole

    • Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      24 hours ago

      No one is implying that at all, what we are saying is Obama had the power to prevent it, and did not regardless of any neolib reasoning that could be applied, he ran on hope and change but what did he really change from the norm?

      I guess vastly increased the drone war and gave billions to the banks, that was definitely a new one.

      • Doom@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        19 hours ago

        I would argue some are. I think the aggression towards Obama from the right has genuinely convinced people of someone who he is not. I’m not saying he’s free from criticism but they are acting like he was really into bombing kids which is a good tag line for criticizing a sitting president but looking back in hindsight he really did not cause as many casualties as is pushed.

        He also didn’t increase drone warfare the technology shifted. Under Bush we didn’t have that and what we got instead was a ton of casualties. Obama made the very obviously intelligent choice of keeping his men out of harms way. Why wouldn’t you do that?

        Giving billions to the banks, bailouts, etc. that wasn’t fun to do. I’m sure as president deals are made but the economy was shit and not because of him. He managed to recover us from 2008 economic worry and had 8 years of solid economy afterwards.

        I’m sorry I see the sentiment of the criticisms but, and this is what I think people fail to really embrace and understand in a realistic actual like this is a real life kind of way, what the fuck else was he gonna do? Get soldiers killed en masse? Let the banking crap sink the country and demolish regular people’s lives?

        Nah. Obama was the best we had in my life time and best we had in 70 years. I’d give his presidency a B-. Hindsight is 20/20 everything looks more clear in the rearview but when you’re in it, decisions have to be made and I don’t think he ever made decisions that were selfish or intentionally harmful like many other presidents do all the time

        • piefood@feddit.online
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 hour ago

          Well, I’m sure the kids he bombed will be stoked to hear that he really didn’t really want to kill or maim them, it just had to be done. If only he could have had a different option, like, I dunno, not bombing them.

          “Obama made the very obviously intelligent choice of keeping his men out of harms way.”

          By putting them in a pointless war, doing pointless missions? If he wanted them kept safe, he would have pulled them out of there. But he pushed war further instead because it made his friends a lot of money.

          “He managed to recover us from 2008 economic worry and had 8 years of solid economy afterwards.”

          lolwut? We still haven’t recovered from that. Sure, if you count the money that the rich have, the economy looks better, but for the average american, it’s still getting worse every year. All because Obama didn’t want to make his rich friends sad.

          You can keep spinning this monster as a good guy who really tried hard, but all of the evidence is against that. He chose to bomb children. He chose to bail out the rich, while screwing over the poor. He chose to torture innocent people. None of that was forced on him.

          • Doom@ttrpg.network
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            51 minutes ago

            Obama didn’t bomb kids. The military regardless of president has bombed kids. Whole government problem dunno why you point at Obama as the king that’s goofy.

            Wasn’t his war. Military industrial complex is huge. it’s very cute you guys think that gets dismantled in a day of something stupid.

            The economy was genuinely better though. I can say the economy operated better there rather than here and simultaneously know the economy and system do not service the poor or society. Why can’t you?

            • piefood@feddit.online
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              45 minutes ago

              Oh, so Obama wasn’t the commander-in-chief? He bears no responsiblity for blowing up people that he admitted he directly told his staff to do?

              It literally was his war. He literally had every opportunity to pull out, but chose to expand the war instead.

              The economy was genuinely not better. Housing, healthcare, education, the gap between the rich and the poor increased under him, while he gave handouts to his rich friends. I can’t say the economy operated better, because I care about more things than the GDP or Stock-Market. I care about how the entire economy works, not just rich-people’s economy.

              • Doom@ttrpg.network
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 minutes ago

                You should look up JFK talking to De Gaulle and admitting the CIA is rogue under him. Things will make more sense.