Hail To The Chief (Read Mod Warning In OP)

RobertKK · 26-01-2017 03:54PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Obama is gone Robert. He is finished. His legacy will be judged. Right now we have a President droning people, promising to re-instigate torture.

Priorities Robert.

Policies continue and it is what changes from one president to the next.

I just see a lot of double standards.
Lets start with the inauguration: high profile singers refusing to perform but seemed to have no problem getting paid loads to sing for proven dictators whose standards of human rights are far lower than the US.

The silence about the drone wars under Obama, but Guantanamo...

All the wars under Obama, but Trump...

Some people have chosen to find their conscience, rather than scrutinise each president and criticise each president for the crimes they do commit.

I listen to people complain about Trump, I want to turn my eyes up as they praise Obama and I wonder how can people be so blind.
I watched the Trump inauguration with a person who said Obama was good, I told them about the drone wars as we watched, and they were shocked and said they did not know that.

The media/news has done a good job of keeping a lot of people ignorant of reality.
Trump like Obama and their predecessors will continue to commit a lot of crimes, but some think Democrat equals better than Republican, when in fact both parties have been and are involved in mass slaughter that seems never ending.

Zubeneschamali · 26-01-2017 03:56PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I want to turn my eyes up as they praise Obama

Obama is gone, Robert, move on, get over it.

RobertKK · 26-01-2017 03:59PM

MightyMandarin wrote: »

I'm not advocating for either. If they're going to be 'captured' at least give them a fair trial but you haven't advocated for it at all.

Where is my faux outrage? I'm as annoyed by Obama's policy of Drone Strikes as I am with Bush's policy of torture and Trump's plans to return to that.

You still haven't said whether you think Trump will stop the drone strikes and you continue to ignore that point.

You say Guantanamo is worse, but yet the people in the video can speak out, unlike those killed in drone strikes that are innocent.

Can you show me evidence where you have spoken out against the drone wars previously?

Can you tell me the details of Trump's policies?

Is it fair to say if people are going to Guantanamo if means the risk of innocent people being killed is lesser?

Billy86 · 26-01-2017 03:59PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Trump has already said the Americans may get another chance to take Iraq's oil.

I think he was just rambling on, saying whatever came into his head the way he does, like threatening war with China without meaning to, but he may actually be blabbing stuff his staff have discussed. Someone with his level of self-importance and grandiosity will be quite unable to keep grand plans secret, he will yell them at the first microphone he sees.

I wouldn't be so sure that he -continuously- threatens and agitates for war with China by mistake to be honest. He keeps poking, and they keep fobbing it off, laughing at him, or making a controlled stand, then it goes quiet for a small while... and he agitates or threatens again.

He really, really seems to want a war with China, and I'm really, really curious exactly as to why.

B0jangles · 26-01-2017 04:00PM

RobertKK wrote: »

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/824573698774601729

Trump has a go at Chelsea Manning about what was said about Obama.
Chelsea Manning only said the truth.

He is apparently parroting whatever they say on Fox News

https://twitter.com/brianstelter/status/824595118955069441/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

The US President is forming his policies and opinions based on whatever Fox Frigging News says.

This is not good.

Billy86 · 26-01-2017 04:01PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Obama is gone, Robert, move on, get over it.

When you can't find a way to defend the indefensible though, it sure is an easy (albeit transparent) out!

RobertKK · 26-01-2017 04:01PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Obama is gone, Robert, move on, get over it.

To only partly quote, is to take a sentence out of context.

Are you going to say next, all Obama's policies are gone so he was a totally irrelevant president, and that is why he cannot be mentioned?

RobertKK · 26-01-2017 04:01PM

Billy86 wrote: »

When you can't find a way to defend the indefensible though, it sure is an easy (albeit transparent) out!

Tell me what have I defended?

Billy86 · 26-01-2017 04:03PM

B0jangles wrote: »

He is apparently parroting whatever they say on Fox News

https://twitter.com/brianstelter/status/824595118955069441/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

The US President is forming his policies and opinions based on whatever Fox Frigging News says.

This is not good.

Using it from Fox News is actually a step to the centre, considering Breitbart basically run a huge portion of his government. Not that that is a good good thing, but it really says everything about his "biased media" nonsense, and where quite a chunk of it is coming from.

Billy86 · 26-01-2017 04:04PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Tell me what have I defended?

That Trump would be an isolationist president, for a start.

If I recall you were also defending his Wall/Muslim ban/etc policies as just bluster that he had no interest on following through with, to further your argument that he was relatively harmless. How's that one going?

VinLieger · 26-01-2017 04:09PM

And the doomsday clock just move from 3 minutes to 2 and 1/2 minutes to midnight, global warming as well as nuclear arms proliferation, which Trump is both for being the key reasons.

Its a record low since it was at 2 in 1953

RobertKK · 26-01-2017 04:12PM

Billy86 wrote: »

That Trump would be an isolationist president, for a start.

If I recall you were also defending his Wall/Muslim ban/etc policies as just bluster that he had no interest on following through with, to further your argument that he was relatively harmless. How's that one going?

Lets see how many unnecessary wars he starts, given under Obama we got unnecessary wars and support for wars in Libya, Yemen, Egypt, Syria...

So lets see how many new wars we get.

I don't really have a problem with a wall for a barrier.

I don't have a problem if the US decides to restrict access to the US from countries like Syria, Iraq, Somalia etc.
The European open door policy was a disaster, that ended up with Europe doing a costly deal with Turkey so we could pick and choose by exchanging people and paying them a lot for the privilege.

The time for open borders is over.

SEPT 23 1989 · 26-01-2017 04:18PM

RobertKK wrote: »

So lets see how many new wars we get.

.

There will be none

it will be a very peaceful four years

B0jangles · 26-01-2017 04:20PM

This insane flurry of Executive Orders that Trump is signing pretty much non-stop? Apparently they are largely unvetted, of very dubious legality and practicability and mostly being written by Breitbart's own Steve Bannon and Trump aide Stephen Miller:

President Donald Trump’s team made little effort to consult with federal agency lawyers or lawmakers as they churned out executive actions this week, stoking fears the White House is creating the appearance of real momentum with flawed orders that might be unworkable, unenforceable or even illegal.

The White House didn’t ask State Department experts to review Trump’s memorandum on the Keystone XL pipeline, even though the company that wants to build the pipeline is suing the U.S. for $15 billion, according to two people familiar with the matter.

Defense Secretary James Mattis and CIA Director Mike Pompeo were “blindsided” by a draft order that would require agencies to reconsider using interrogation techniques that are currently banned as torture, according to sources with knowledge of their thinking.

Just a small circle of officials at the Department of Health and Human Services knew about the executive action starting to unwind Obamacare, and they got a heads-up only the night before it was released. Key members of Congress weren’t consulted either, according to several members. And at a conference in Philadelphia, GOP legislators say they had no idea whether some of the executive orders would contrast with existing laws — because they hadn't reviewed them.

...

Inside the West Wing, it is almost impossible for some aides to know what is in the executive orders, staffers say. They have been written by Stephen Miller, Trump’s senior White House adviser for policy, and Steve Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist, according to people familiar with the matter. Ideas for some of the Trump executive orders came from transition officials and so-called “landing teams,” sources say, who weren’t working in the White House.

Aides have also said that it was sometimes a game-time decision if Trump was going to sign a certain executive order that day.

The only other administration that began with such swift executive actions was Ronald Reagan’s, said David Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown University and a former official at the Federal Trade Commission. Those directives were more heavily vetted.

“If you don’t run these kinds of initiatives through the affected agencies, you’re going to get something wrong,” Vladeck said. “A government by edict is not a sustainable idea.”

By contrast, the Obama White House ran executive orders through a painstaking weeks-long process of soliciting feedback from agencies and briefing lawmakers, according to a former official. Sometimes it even asked expert lawyers in the private sector to check its work.

He's pantomiming decisive action to try to gain more widespread popularity - it'd be pathetic if it weren't so dangerous

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trumps-flashy-executive-actions-could-run-aground-234200

Billy86 · 26-01-2017 04:27PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Lets see how many unnecessary wars he starts, given under Obama we got unnecessary wars and support for wars in Libya, Yemen, Egypt, Syria...

So lets see how many new wars we get.

I don't really have a problem with a wall for a barrier.

I don't have a problem if the US decides to restrict access to the US from countries like Syria, Iraq, Somalia etc.
The European open door policy was a disaster, that ended up with Europe doing a costly deal with Turkey so we could pick and choose by exchanging people and paying them a lot for the privilege.

The time for open borders is over.

See what we're talking about? You're unable to defend his agitating for war in Syria, Iraq, China and Mexico after less than a week in the job so you just jump back to "oh but Obama!" You can't defend the indefensible, with Trump going entirely against the absolute number one reason you said you wanted him to be President, so you're just trying to deflect attention.

Another reason you supported Trump was because you felt the other candidate was beholden to Wall Street... again, how is that one working out? Or that he would be harsh on Saudi Arabia, and yet here he is giving them special treatment in his proposed Muslim ban.

You've been sold a con Robert, and you've sold yourself into it as willingly as possible. Trump is everything you claim(ed) to stand against and you just can't seem to bring yourself to realise it. So all you can do is try to deflect into talking about somebody, anybody, else. It used to be Clinton (though when a rumour went about over Clinton having a role in Trump's government post election, you were very quick to try and call that a good thing), now it's Obama, and it's just as transparent with one as it was with the other.

orubiru · 26-01-2017 04:33PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Obama is gone, Robert, move on, get over it.

So frustrating.

The poster was not making a point about Obama. The point was that people are so blind that they will criticize one president while giving another a free pass.

You think you are smart enough to diagnose personality disorders in people you've (I assume) never spent any time with but you can't identify blatant double standards right in front of you?

VinLieger · 26-01-2017 04:38PM

orubiru wrote: »

So frustrating.

The poster was not making a point about Obama. The point was that people are so blind that they will criticize one president while giving another a free pass.

You think you are smart enough to diagnose personality disorders in people you've (I assume) never spent any time with but you can't identify blatant double standards right in front of you?

For the entirety of the campaign and transition "trumpeters" were shouting "but look at Obama, look at Hillary, hes not elected yet don't judge his actions, hes not in office yet you cant judge his actions, look over there at that shiny thing"

Well he's here now and taking actions so unfortunately its time to judge them and they aren't great so far. Whats achieved by comparing him to Obama? Nothing except deflection the exact same deflection that was in use during the campaign and transition.

Also if you can't see how trump fits that diagnosis exactly your as deluded as the trump voters who tried to claim when both pictures were in front of their eyes that trumps picture had more people than Obama's

orubiru · 26-01-2017 04:39PM

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't really get the criticism over drone strikes. Of course there were a lot of them under Obama, the technology became more available under Obama and the whole point of the drones is to send them instead of soldiers and pilots.

I thought the problem with the drone strikes is that it turns the USA into judge jury and executioner in the cases where drones are used?

I'm not sure of the extent of collateral damage, if there is any at all, when drones are used but this would surely be an issue too?

With Guantanamo people are being imprisoned without trial, which is wrong in itself, but with the drone strikes aren't they just skipping imprisonment and heading straight to execution?

VinLieger · 26-01-2017 04:42PM

orubiru wrote: »

I thought the problem with the drone strikes is that it turns the USA into judge jury and executioner in the cases where drones are used?

I'm not sure of the extent of collateral damage, if there is any at all, when drones are used but this would surely be an issue too?

With Guantanamo people are being imprisoned without trial, which is wrong in itself, but with the drone strikes aren't they just skipping imprisonment and heading straight to execution?

Is there a difference between using Drones to go after targets to using soldiers to go after targets?

orubiru · 26-01-2017 04:51PM

VinLieger wrote: »

For the entirety of the campaign and transition "trumpeters" were shouting "but look at Obama, look at Hillary, hes not elected yet don't judge his actions, hes not in office yet you cant judge his actions, look over there at that shiny thing"

Well he's here now and taking actions so unfortunately its time to judge them and they aren't great so far. Whats achieved by comparing him to Obama? Nothing except deflection the exact same deflection that was in use during the campaign and transition.

Also if you can't see how trump fits that diagnosis exactly your as deluded as the trump voters who tried to claim when both pictures were in front of their eyes that trumps picture had more people than Obama's

I think that it was obvious from the very beginning that Donald Trump is a ridiculously inappropriate candidate for President of the USA.

I have no doubt that his presidency will be a disaster because he is simply not qualified or prepared to do the job. That's my opinion.

It's not simply comparing Trump to Obama. It's looking at people who were fine with Obamas failings because they liked the guy. Now they are ready to be outraged because a guy the don't like is doing the things. It's a pretty appalling attitude.

What's achieved by comparing him to Obama is pointing out the blatant double standard that so many people demonstrate when it comes to politics.

When you see someone pointing out double standards it doesn't mean that they are pro-Trump.

orubiru · 26-01-2017 04:55PM

VinLieger wrote: »

Is there a difference between using Drones to go after targets to using soldiers to go after targets?

It depends? Are we looking to capture or kill the targets?

Are the targets just suspects or have they been found guilty? Who decided?

If soldiers show up at my door with guns then regardless of my alleged crimes I can drop to my knees and surrender, right?

Do I have the same option with drones?

RobertKK · 26-01-2017 04:56PM

Billy86 wrote: »

See what we're talking about? You're unable to defend his agitating for war in Syria, Iraq, China and Mexico after less than a week in the job so you just jump back to "oh but Obama!" You can't defend the indefensible, with Trump going entirely against the absolute number one reason you said you wanted him to be President, so you're just trying to deflect attention.

Another reason you supported Trump was because you felt the other candidate was beholden to Wall Street... again, how is that one working out? Or that he would be harsh on Saudi Arabia, and yet here he is giving them special treatment in his proposed Muslim ban.

You've been sold a con Robert, and you've sold yourself into it as willingly as possible. Trump is everything you claim(ed) to stand against and you just can't seem to bring yourself to realise it. So all you can do is try to deflect into talking about somebody, anybody, else. It used to be Clinton (though when a rumour went about over Clinton having a role in Trump's government post election, you were very quick to try and call that a good thing), now it's Obama, and it's just as transparent with one as it was with the other.

He has not looked to start a war with China or Mexico.
Have people been aslep as the newly formed islands were also a very contentious issue for the Obama administration?
Remember the US submersible drone the Chinese captured last month?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/16/china-seizes-us-underwater-drone-south-china-sea

The aggressive Chinese gesture comes at a time of rising tensions between China and the US in the South China Sea, where Beijing has claimed ownership of a number of reefs and small islands – which it is in the process of militarising – while the US navy has been conducting patrols nearby to assert freedom of navigation in the sea lanes.

But lets believe this is all new under Trump. Lets choose to be stupid and blame Trump for everything, because we can all be too lazy to see what has been going on under the previous administration, so instead we can pretend that tensions with China are something new under Trump.
The islands in question has been a rising issue of contentions between China and the US, plus other countries in the Pacific region.

Maybe Obama would not be mentioned if we had seen the people who hate Trump being mentioned, also had a conscience when he was in power.

Oh Trump is looking for war with China, lets ignore what has been going on in the Pacific and the the rising tensions that were there previously, lets act as if this is all something new under Trump and make claims.
Nothing has changed, so I can see why mentioning Obama is a major inconvenience.

VinLieger · 26-01-2017 05:01PM

orubiru wrote: »

It depends? Are we looking to capture or kill the targets?

Are the targets just suspects or have they been found guilty? Who decided?

If soldiers show up at my door with guns then regardless of my alleged crimes I can drop to my knees and surrender, right?

Do I have the same option with drones?

Whats the likelyhood of extracting the captive and soldiers safely from those areas, is it worth the risk to leave them alive versus the info they would give or the lives of the soldiers?

I do get what you mean but its not as simple as "drones are bad"

One could argue they are participants in a war too in which case guilty or innocent does not really come into it

RobertKK · 26-01-2017 05:03PM

VinLieger wrote: »

Is there a difference between using Drones to go after targets to using soldiers to go after targets?

People who previously worked with the drones have claimed they don't know most of the people who are killed, they are just corpses.
That men of military age are guilty unless they can be proven to be innocent after death.

Drones are used in my opinion to lower US military deaths, and innocent people being killed in some far away land has been made acceptable, we do not see mass protests in the US when a wedding party are massacred.
We did not see protests in Obama's first week when he killed a young family.
It is just glossed over as a mistake, which does not give us a view of the human misery and long lasting devastation that was unleashed on innocent people.
It was just a mistake.

Soldiers would do a better job.

Skylinehead · 26-01-2017 05:06PM

RobertKK wrote: »

People who previously worked with the drones have claimed they don't know most of the people who are killed, they are just corpses.
That men of military age are guilty unless they can be proven to be innocent after death.

Drones are used in my opinion to lower US military deaths, and innocent people being killed in some far away land has been made acceptable, we do not see mass protests in the US when a wedding party are massacred.
We did not see protests in Obama's first week when he killed a young family.
It is just glossed over as a mistake, which does not give us a view of the human misery and long lasting devastation that was unleashed on innocent people.
It was just a mistake.

Soldiers would do a better job.

We've had this conversation before, but drones aren't taking over soldiers roles, they're replacing normal airstrikes, which have gone on for decades.

RobertKK · 26-01-2017 05:09PM

Skylinehead wrote: »

We've had this conversation before, but drones aren't taking over soldiers roles, they're replacing normal airstrikes, which have gone on for decades.

But were airstrikes capturing people?

If the drones have replaced normal air stirkes, where are all the prisoners?

Jelle1880 · 26-01-2017 05:10PM

I actually think the use of drones is a step forward in warfare, it eliminates the risk of pilots and planes being shot down.

The main issue is that confirmation of targets seems to be a lot more difficult and hence civilian casualties are a reality.

Skylinehead · 26-01-2017 05:18PM

RobertKK wrote: »

But were airstrikes capturing people?

If the drones have replaced normal air stirkes, where are all the prisoners?

No they were killing them, just like drones.

Is there a decline in prisoner taking? I have no idea on that one. But lets not pretend that the US has been killing its enemies rather than capturing them for many years now.

orubiru · 26-01-2017 05:18PM

VinLieger wrote: »

Whats the likelyhood of extracting the captive and soldiers safely from those areas, is it worth the risk to leave them alive versus the info they would give or the lives of the soldiers?

I do get what you mean but its not as simple as "drones are bad"

One could argue they are participants in a war too in which case guilty or innocent does not really come into it

Do you think there's enough transparency to actually answer those questions?

How many drone strikes have there been and how many people have they killed? Are these folks killed because they are "suspected" or because they are provably guilty of crimes punishable by death?

Surely we are not OK with this...

https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/02/19/us-yemen-drone-strike-may-violate-obama-policy

https://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/19/the-aftermath-of-drone-strikes-on-a-wedding-convoy-in-yemen/?_r=0

An attack by the US in December 2013, in a wedding procession in Yemen, killed 12 men and wounded at least 15 other people, including the bride. US and Yemeni officials said the dead were members of the armed group Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), but witnesses and relatives told Human Rights Watch the casualties were civilians. Witnesses and relatives told Human Rights Watch that no members of AQAP were in the procession and provided names and other information about those killed and wounded. They said the dead included the groom’s adult son and the bride received superficial face wounds. The local governor and military commander called the casualties a “mistake” and gave money and assault rifles to the families of those killed and wounded – a traditional gesture of apology in Yemen. A few days after the incident, Yemeni MPs voted for a ban against the use of drones in Yemen, though it is unclear what effect this will have on drone usage.

Now, obviously this has nothing to do with Trump so I apologize.

However I would suggest that blowing up a goddamn wedding is pretty bad, even if it was an accident. Maybe my information is wrong here and I will hold my hands up if it is.

I guess what I'm asking is how much were people willing to forgive Obama and how much would they have been willing to forgive Hillary versus how willing they would be to forgive Trumps decisions?

Maybe it's actually better for the USA to have a president that everyone/the media hates as they will be held accountable?

Trump is bad, yeah, but WTF have Americans been ignoring through the last 8 years?

RobertKK · 26-01-2017 05:28PM

Skylinehead wrote: »

No they were killing them, just like drones.

Is there a decline in prisoner taking? I have no idea on that one. But lets not pretend that the US has been killing its enemies rather than capturing them for many years now.

Under Bush, hundreds of people captured and taken to Guantanamo.

What you suggest with a 'don't know' leaves it open to interpretation that Obama may have operated secret prisons, or instead he killed them...

If Trump goes back to the Bush policy with Guantanamo, we will know they were simply killed.

Hail To The Chief (Read Mod Warning In OP)

Comments