Now all we need is a pointless argument on which way the toilet paper goes on the roll holder.
lol. It's funny cause we're supposed to pretend the alternatives would've been better (i.e. Clinton, McCain, or Romney)
Or maybe that America is an evil empire that will commit atrocities regardless of who's the president.
But it's just Obama. Why not use the American flag or put USA somewhere?
Sure he ramped up drone use... but like you said we would've done that regardless of who was president
Because he won a Nobel peace prize? It's good to remind people that he isn't a good person. Everyone likes to pretend he was "the only good president" or something. He did evil things too. Like "crimes against humanity" evil.
The cartoon works because it plays on people's preconceived notions of Obama.
Also it's possible the cartoon was drawn while he was president, in which case he would represent the US just as well as an American flag for purposes of a political cartoon.
Proven every single year. It's not a new thing either. Look at the real non-revisionist history of "the war of 1812" and you'll see how the US started some shit unprovoked yet again, got their asses handed to them like Vietnam, and had to retreat. Canadians/British burned down the US capital as a f-off symbol and then retreated. The US views that as a victory.
The US views the war of 1812 as a victory? In Canada we are taught it was a British victory. A white peace is typically considered a loss for the aggressor.
Yes. The US teaches they won it. I protested that using the textbooks of my parents from other commonwealth countries which were clearly not as revisionist. History teacher failed to recognize he was wrong. This is the type of propaganda Americans are exposed to all the time. I was fortunate enough to have most of my education outside the US and then proactive parents that didn't let any of that propaganda BS fly.
That's wild. How do they even claim victory? Like I said, they started a war with the hope of capturing territory, and no territory was captured when the peace was signed. How do you spin that as a win?
Don't worry, idk where this person was educated but there are plenty of states with actual education standards. I'm not a recent grad by any measure, but I was taught 1812 and Vietnam were absolute losses for the US.
Read this for an example:
https://www.britannica.com/event/War-of-1812
Since you have an actual education and know that it was the US being a bully and trying to steal Ontario and Quebec when they thought the British were weak.
Notice how the encyclopedia (with American propaganda) it's about trade violations. And the British stalled peace, then surrendered after being crushed in new Orleans. It's Amazing how twisted Americans can make history.
It’s hilarious to me that you currently have eight downvotes for saying this. Just think, that’s eight people who are still bought-in to the lies they told us when we were children and the lies they tell TV-news viewers every day.
I had to speak with someone at my job who had something that sounded like CNN blasting in the background the other day. What a depressing state of affairs.
I love what you goobers think the president does. What powers they do and don’t have. Stay classy.
And it'll only need to be used once, the party that's likely to use it would like to use it to eliminate their competition, then get rid of the idea of there being a competition at all
Maybe he shoulda experimented with clubbing McConnell with a baseball bat instead of rolling over when McConnell defied the Constitution during his SCOTUS pick.
When you're doing an experiment you set up the conditions and then observe the results. If you need to constantly involve yourself then you're running a bad experiment. "Experiment" is a terrible way to describe democracy.
Then how am I supposed to support a coup in a socialist country and say "socialism failed the experiment"?
Started by those people doesn't mean we act like they did..even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Don't drown baby in the bathwater before you shower; or whatever the phrase is.
He had complete control of Congress for 2 years, and could have given us universal healthcare. Instead, he gave us the ACA and only made the existing system that much more complicated.
•
if republicans want 50 bucks they ask for 100 so they can negotiate down to 70 at most.
if obama wants 50 bucks he asks for 20 in hopes it'll make republicans more likely to accept, then lets republicans negotiate it down to 5.
The right actively worked against him from day 1. The death of Senator Ted Kennedy and Independent Senator Lieberman really hampered his efforts for a single payer option.
I don't remember the exact details, but the dems only had effective control of congress for something like 10 days, due to technicalities.
It's a reference to Abraham Lincoln's first inaugural address:
"I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."
Barack, Barack. That might be what you wish it was about. Reality paints a different picture.
I love it when western leaders preach about democracy while raining down fire on people across the world.
They aren't mutually exclusive. Democracy just means that (in theory/principle) everyone gets a say in whose wedding on the other side of the world gets bombed.
Democracy isn't inherently peaceful. No governing system is.
Wait, aren't those mutually exclusive? You can have a democracy at home and still do all those things abroad.
Because overthrowing democracies and replacing them with dictatorships is not exactly in line with their rhetoric? Because it's hard to vote in elections when you've been killed in a drone strike?
I'm still not convinced. Just because you hold yourself to a certain standard for your population doesn't mean you can't behave differently with other people. I don't know of a system of government that requires that kind of ethical consistency but someone else probably does. But my point is that democracy doesn't seem to be one of those.
I do get you, though, it's beyond shitty, and looks like a bunch of self-serving hypocrites. I simply don't believe it's a requirement.
I'm not claiming that democracies have some literal obligation to support or promote democracy elsewhere, just that it is, like you said, hypocritical when to claim to support the tenants and ideals of democracy while actively suppressing it elsewhere
That wouldn't be in line with "spreading" democracy, but could still easily be part of a democratic country lashing out.
Even the most perfect Democracy will only ever represent the wishes of the voters in that country and never those of people who don't have a right to vote there.
Democracy is only less war prone than dictatorships for those situations were there would be large losses, because lots of soldiers coming back home in cofins doesn't go down well with voters.
For situations were there is a huge power imbalance Democracies can be just as war-mongering as the rest, which is why you see lots of military interventions of the US against small countries or countries with ill-trained armies and equipment two generations behind or even, as very heavilly done by the very gentleman quoted in this meme, remote bombing of people in other countries who have no chance whatsoever to retaliate: Obama had no problem whatsoever with remote murdering of people in far away lands because there was no significant path for that to harm him politically (and there wouldn't be even if the US was a proper Democracy rather than the Theatre of Democracy it actually is).
The hypocrisy is how some leaders (most noteable Americans, but far from just them) pass Democracy as good for people in other countries - sure, them having their own Democracy there will probably be good for them, but you having a Democracy makes no difference to them as they don't have a vote in your Democracy.
Imagine being such a fucking bootlicker, and probably financially privileged enough, that as a Black man, you consider America now, but also historically, "inclusive" in any way shape or form.
Never mind having had the job to know that American democracy is a lie (but I guess lying to yourself about it to make you feel better).
Makes me almost think it's a fake, but then neoliberalism is a hell of a drug..
Have you been to other countries? The USA isnt great.. but someplaces its literally gulag to be a minority, person of colour, or LGBTQ+
Have you been to other countries? The USA isnt great.. but someplaces its literally gulag to be a minority, person of colour
Have you been to any other countries?
Because the only place I know of which is putting its people of colour in open-air prisons is Israel, which has the full support of the USA.
You don't think the US is inclusive? What does that word mean to you?
Not trying to argue or anything. It's just a bit surprising to me. I work in the US and the company I work at takes great steps to be inclusive. I legit have to always applaud their efforts (as a brown dude that supports gay/trans folks). I honestly can't imagine there's many cities on earth where that happens
Edit:typo
Lmmfao..
The USA was founded on genocide and built on slavery, and has never treated either of the groups they owe their exitance to with anything but disdain and abuse, never mind other groups like LGBTQIA+, disabled people, those who aren't white or Christian, women, and so on and so on...
Members of all of those groups are not only generally paid less, criminalised more, given less access to services and opportunities, but are openly abused by both establishment and society.
But for you to specifically use trans people as an example, in this climate, where they have been the direct target of bigoted and violent abuse really is infuriating, and I have a feeling you're more of a self designated "ally" than an actual one, since you're clearly not even aware of what trans people are having to deal with.
The fact that you find the idea of American not being inclusive surprising only proves your wilful ignorance, not the presence of any real inclusion in the USA.
You're assuming a lot dude, I don't disagree with you on any of that stuff. I literally never mentioned any of those things you're upset about. Go reread my comment.
All I'm saying is, the company I work at, which doesn't reflect everyone, has trans managers and more women leading teams of engineers than I think most Americans would imagine. That's why I asked.
I'm like 95ish% with you, it's just that you made a huge claim, the US isn't inclusive. Try to imagine a person that isn't "willfully" ignorant, for lack of (trying to find) a better word, hears you say that while from their view they see more and more trans people, women, POC, and immigrants in real positions of power. It would be understandably jarring to say that's not inclusive.
Regardless, I think you forgot to answer my question. What does the word inclusive mean to you? Is it like an all or nothing kind of thing? If so, what would that look like?
Honestly, you're not making conversation with you easy. But it's all good. Haha. I can be pretty rude and insufferable at times, myself (no offense). We totally don't have to keep this going if it's not worthwhile
I don't think you're the problem here, you've been very polite. They're from blahaj.zone; there are a lot of very angry people over there and it seems to be part of the culture to go out of their way to be unpleasant. I blocked the whole instance in Voyager because I don't want to deal with their militant bullshit, but I guess that doesn't keep their users out of my feed...
You're right, Obama. I'll load my AR and start teaching some chemistry. But, rest assured, I'll never match your kill count.