I mean with Trump now, surely Obama comparatively seems great? Not a saint but isn't it easy to see why those relatives would miss him?
post
The list of people who let Perfect be the enemy of Good grows at the end of every American school year. Republicans LOVE single-issue voters since they're easy to manipulate. Source: 2024 election.
"I agree, he wasn't perfect and was certainly a product of a broken system. However, nothing you've said has changed my missing him, nor my believing that he was infinitely better than Trump, even if not perfect."
Both sides bad. Amirite?
This is primarily an anarchist community. If you want us to call the Democrats good, you'll be waiting for a long time. The 9th layer of hell and the 7th layer of hell have differences, but it's still hell.
I wish online leftists hated conservatives half as much as they hate people who are only a little left wing. Like ya, Obama sucks and bombed a school a decade and a half ago but trump bombed one two weeks ago and also wants to do a genocide right now.
Well, Trump is bombing children now so of course the previous president who bombed children is okay.
What an utterly daft statement that is lacking in solidarity. Like, bruh, they both bombed children in the pursuit of Imperialist power. That should fall well below the minimum expectations required for you to willingly be supportive of either candidate. This shortsighted, reactionary mentality is exactly how we ended up with the society we have.
Continuing to settle for the 2nd worst option only ensures that society continues to backslide as the threat of something even worse traps people into ceding power to a "lesser evil" which in turn only enables evil to continue to hold power over the people.
And absolutely laughing at the insinuation that Obama was even remotely left-wing. That is just a politically illiterate statement.
Leftists literally want to kill right-wingers. They only criticise 'centrists'.
The fact that you think you're the bigger victim because people try to reach you with words instead of fists or bullets is your own naivety.
Leftists literally want to kill right-wingers. They only criticise ‘centrists’.
That's curious, because overwhelmingly what is seen in these conversations are self-proclaimed leftists who neither kill nor criticize right-wingers, but find any reason to condemn anyone with any chance of making any change as some form of centrist. See: the reaction to Zohran Mamdani.
Want is not the same as doing, that takes a lot to drive people to radicalise enough to do so.
And why criticise a right winger? They won't read it or learn from it. What a waste of effort, there's a least some hope to convert a centrist.
And there is no chance of making any change as centrist under such a 'democracy', they are fleeting changes that can be revoked by the next person to get into power. Real, lasting change requires revolution not reform or voting.
Want is not the same as doing, that takes a lot to drive people to radicalise enough to do so.
Okay, so the argument is that they want to do something against right-wingers, but do nothing. But they want to do something against insufficiently left-wing centrists, and do do that.
Can you outline to me how this is any different than a given neolib saying they really want to stop conservatives, but only ever seem to actually try to nitpick and belittle progressives?
And why criticise a right winger? They won’t read it or learn from it. What a waste of effort, there’s a least some hope to convert a centrist.
Because conversations in the public sphere affect how people conceptualize and internalize ideas, apart from the direct conversants. When right-wing ideas are allowed to spread unchallenged, they become more normalized and change the political leanings of the society as a whole.
And there is no chance of making any change as centrist under such a ‘democracy’, they are fleeting changes that can be revoked by the next person to get into power. Real, lasting change requires revolution not reform or voting.
Okay, but that's separate from the notion that reform or voting are not worthwhile. For that, you have to reject the notion that revolution is affected by conditions in society (which is absurd) and assert that harm to oppressed demographics is immaterial (which is intuitively repugnant).
Reform won't give us socialism. But it alleviates suffering and can put us in a better position to strike for socialism.
The eight-hour day fucking sucks, but without it, we would be in WORSE organizing conditions in the modern day. Universal healthcare does not solve unequal access to healthcare systems, but few would argue that it was pointless for the UK and every other civilized country out there to pass.
In any case, the objection made here is that self-proclaimed leftists who only punch left-of-society's-center, but never seem to find any even vaguely comparable amount of time to punch right-of-society's-center, is legitimately not a fucking good thing.
Bayard Rustin was a gay man who was one of the top organizers of MLK's March On Washington.
Rustin never pushed King to speak out on gay rights, because they both know that the USA in the 1960's wasn't ready for that conversation.
We're looking at him through the lens of 2026. At least he pushed for the Affordable Care Act and repealing of Don't Ask Don't Tell. The man wasn't a saint but he sure as shit is better than what we have now. Yes I'd rather have a socialist like Bernie Sanders but this is all we have unfortunately and if I had to make a choice between the two administrations I'd go with Obama 11 times out of 10.
You, like everyone else, fail to realize that by having a weak leader, it dooms us to the fake strong leader of the republicans. Or the fascimile of the republicans in EVERY western country. Wake up. We will get reform, under strong leadership, either we give it to them, or fascists will.
All US presidents should be sent to the Hague
Why I don't talk to family. I refuse to put up with anyone that supports the right, including neolibs.
The sanctioning of 'double-tap' drone strikes, and, by a fairly recent interpretation of international law, enabling Saudi atrocities in Yemen.
What else does he have?
The first black American president, turning one of the wealthiest nations in Africa, Libya, into a failed state with open slave trade markets is peak irony.
He ordered a drone strike on an American citizen, and bombed schools, weddings, and hospitals (including a doctor's without borders hospital). He extended the patriot act and persecuted Snowden and manning for telling us that the federal government was regularly sidestepping the bill of rights.
What else do you need?
He ordered a drone strike on an American citizen
"American citizen" is not a protection against designation as an enemy combatant, unless you want to tell a bunch of Nazi volunteers in WW2 that getting shot by the 101st Airborne was actually a war crime against their precious little souls.
and bombed schools, weddings, and hospitals (including a doctor’s without borders hospital).
I suspect you're thinking of an incident in Afghanistan wherein a US gunship hit a Doctors Without Borders hospital. While abhorrent and arguably a war crime, it was not sanctioned by Obama, and Obama, in fact, was a prominent voice in demanding an investigation of the incident.
The only wedding strike I remember was in Yemen, which was a big issue at the time, and resulted in limitations on the military's ability to carry out drone strikes without presidential approval.
The only school strike I can find were performed under Bush, though considering that the Bush Administration did not reveal many of its strikes, there may very well be more.
Obama's drone campaigns were performed with a callous disregard for civilian casualties compared to what they should have been performed with, and US PR worked double-time to try to paint them as civilian casualty-free (claiming something absurd like a 0.2% civilian casualty ratio). That's not the same as saying that Obama targeted schools, weddings, and hospitals.
He extended the patriot act and persecuted Snowden and manning for telling us that the federal government was regularly sidestepping the bill of rights.
-
Those aren't war crimes. Shitty, sure, arguably against international or Federal law. But that's not what a fucking war crime is.
-
'persecuted Snowden and manning' how so? At best, by not pardoning them? Do you know how the executive and judiciary work in this country? I'm sorry Snowden found it more convenient to go and stick Putin's hand up his ass instead of defending himself in court or fleeing to any fucking legitimate country. I'm more legitimately sorry that Ms. Manning ended up punished for whistleblowing, though I also realize that military prosecutors cannot reasonably say "Oh, well, we think this leak is for a good cause, so we're not prosecuting." A pardon by the executive would have been much better than the commutation she eventually received, and a immediate commutation preferable to the much-delayed one. You want to say that's a terrible sin of Obama's? I'm not in disagreement. But it's not a fucking war crime.
If you're ever wondering how MAGA can still defend trump after all the awful things he's done, go back and look at the mental gymnastics you do to defend that piece of shit Obama and it'll start making sense. Tribalism is a hell of a drug.
"You're doing mental gymnastics by pointing out that my claims are literally untrue 😭"
Sorry you didn't check any of your claims before making them. I understand that games of telephone with online circlejerks are much more entertaining than nasty little things like reality.
Reality: "he did that but here's why it's actually fine"
Reality: “he did that but here’s why it’s actually fine”
The first claim is pointless, as I noted. American citizenship is no more a guarantor against military action than any other status, nor should it be.
The next three of your claims were outright incorrect.
The next two claims I explicitly noted were of pretty horrible offenses, but not of war crimes, as was claimed.
Oh champ. I hope your team wins the Superbowl or world series or whatever you call this hell we're living in
Sorry that your reading comprehension is so subpar. I hope you get better.
You're vehemently defending a bloodthirsty piece of shit. I'm not interested in comprehending the incomprehensible or the unconscionable.
You’re vehemently defending a bloodthirsty piece of shit.
"Your claims are literally, factually incorrect. He has other horrific sins to condemn him for."
"STOP DEFENDING HIM"
Sorry that you only enjoy fantasy, I understand that when LARPing as someone with a sense of morality, it's much more fun than facing the real world.
all 98 comments