CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › The Presidency of Barack Obama
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Presidency of Barack Obama - Page 2

post #51 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
 

"that space-jam dig was a new low to a decorated sportsman, mr president!  APOLOGIZE!!!"

 

-dontrump

 

Why does Jordan get an award but not Bugs Bunny. Sad!

 

-dtrump

post #52 of 123
Thread Starter 

To add to President Obama's accomplishments: He's added 29 new National Parks to the US "inventory", comprising more than 553 million acres. 

 

Yesterday he added two more: one in Utah and one in Nevada. 

 

This makes him the President who's added the most to protected lands in US history. 

post #53 of 123

Almost six months ago, Louisiana accepted the Medicaid expansion.  Since that time, here are the results:

 

 

51 breast and 43 colon cancers detected.

post #54 of 123

Could ya'll include links to info like this please.

ETA- http://ldh.louisiana.gov/HealthyLaDashboard/

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iron Maiden View Post
 

Almost six months ago, Louisiana accepted the Medicaid expansion.  Since that time, here are the results:

 

 

51 breast and 43 colon cancers detected.

post #55 of 123

Slightly outdated (the numbers have improved since), but much of the information can be found here:

 

http://dhh.louisiana.gov/index.cfm/newsroom/detail/4089

post #56 of 123

The current info came from Andy Slavitt:

 

https://twitter.com/ASlavitt/status/810930700073500672

 

You can read more about Slavitt here:

 

https://www.hhs.gov/about/leadership/andy-slavitt.html

post #57 of 123

cool, thanks....

 

I wanted to share this info with some of the compassionless libertarian fucktards on another forum I frequent.  : D

 

This comment from this other post exemplifies the thoughts from a large contingent of people that call themselves Republicans.

 

Quote:
Many expressed frustration that Obamacare plans cost way too much, that premiums and deductibles had spiraled out of control. And part of their anger was wrapped up in the idea that other people were getting even better, even cheaper benefits — and those other people did not deserve the help.
post #58 of 123
Man, that speech was something else. Godspeed you beautiful beautiful man.
post #59 of 123

God Damn, I can't wait for this guy to be out of office so we can have a REAL LIBERALS in office again with some BALLS.  Sorry I had to vent, guys.  I apologize.

post #60 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake Gambino View Post
 

God Damn, I can't wait for this guy to be out of office so we can have a REAL LIBERALS in office again with some BALLS.  Sorry I had to vent, guys.  I apologize.

post #61 of 123


My nephew tonight, channeling me like a Sense8.
post #62 of 123

Alright I am not trying the start a flame war here, but Here are five main gripes I have with Barry O

 

1. He did Nothing to Prosecute the Bankers for 2008

2. He didn't stop the stupid war on Terror/Drone Program/Surveillance State. Or even try to slow it down. Or Try to make it Constitutional.

3. Supporting Globalism and TPP

4. Believing too much TED Talk Silicon Valley  Bullshit about Technology can Solve Everything.  See Drones and NSA Surveillance.

5. He should have behaved like Marlo in the wire when The Republicans were calling him unamerican and were gerrymandering districts in 2011.  I wanted him to be viscious.  That is What They Deserve.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=409Pjtq7jzY

post #63 of 123

Read the full transcript of President Obama's farewell speech

 

I'm glad I was able to experience this Presidency in my lifetime....

 

So many wonderful thoughts/ideas....this one part jumped out at me,
 

Quote:

For too many of us, it’s become safer to retreat into our own bubbles, whether in our neighborhoods or college campuses or places of worship or our social media feeds, surrounded by people who look like us and share the same political outlook and never challenge our assumptions.  The rise of naked partisanship, increasing economic and regional stratification, the splintering of our media into a channel for every taste – all this makes this great sorting seem natural, even inevitable.  And increasingly, we become so secure in our bubbles that we accept only information, whether true or not, that fits our opinions, instead of basing our opinions on the evidence that’s out there.

 

This trend represents a third threat to our democracy.  Politics is a battle of ideas; in the course of a healthy debate, we’ll prioritize different goals, and the different means of reaching them.  But without some common baseline of facts; without a willingness to admit new information, and concede that your opponent is making a fair point, and that science and reason matter, we’ll keep talking past each other, making common ground and compromise impossible. 

 

Isn’t that part of what makes politics so dispiriting?  How can elected officials rage about deficits when we propose to spend money on preschool for kids, but not when we’re cutting taxes for corporations?  How do we excuse ethical lapses in our own party, but pounce when the other party does the same thing?  It’s not just dishonest, this selective sorting of the facts; it’s self-defeating.  Because as my mother used to tell me, reality has a way of catching up with you. 

post #64 of 123
That was a damn fantastic farewell.
post #65 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake Gambino View Post
 

Alright I am not trying the start a flame war here, but Here are five main gripes I have with Barry O

 

1. He did Nothing to Prosecute the Bankers for 2008

This sorta bugs me as well but IMO, if he had done that he would have been a one term President.

 

2. He didn't stop the stupid war on Terror/Drone Program/Surveillance State. Or even try to slow it down. Or Try to make it Constitutional.

Obama never said he was against war, he was against stupid wars. Now, it could be argued that the drone issue caused more problems than it solved but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt as far as it's use goes

 

3. Supporting Globalism and TPP

The world has changed radically in the last 30+ years globalism is here to stay so being against it is moot. TPP has it's postives but it also has many big negatives

 

4. Believing too much TED Talk Silicon Valley  Bullshit about Technology can Solve Everything.  See Drones and NSA Surveillance.

...compared to praying for rain to stop/start depending on whether there is flooding/fires. I'll take science almost every time here.  NSA surveillance is highly troublesome and needs to be fought tooth and nail. That said, I don't trust Google, Yahoo, et al either but at least the NSA (government) is answerable to the US populace. Google, etc.- try and call them to register a complaint....at least I can call my representative.

 

5. He should have behaved like Marlo in the wire when The Republicans were calling him unamerican and were gerrymandering districts in 2011.  I wanted him to be viscious.  That is What They Deserve.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=409Pjtq7jzY

While being vicious night be what the GOP deserves (they are highly retrograde) and what we some might want, lasting and substantive progressive change comes gradually.  For example, while the idea of marriage equality seems to have happened all of a sudden, people have been fighting for it for decades....DECADES.  As Obama said tonight -

 

 

"Yes, our progress has been uneven.  The work of democracy has always been hard, contentious and sometimes bloody.  For every two steps forward, it often feels we take one step back.  But the long sweep of America has been defined by forward motion, a constant widening of our founding creed to embrace all, and not just some."

post #66 of 123

You make good counterpoints, but I just think that Obama didn't adjust to our post fact reality nowadays  This isn't 1974 when you can get Barry Goldwater to go tell Nixon in the White House to resign based on reporting from the Washingtonl Post.  The Sad Fact is that it is who rallies the base who wins elections now.  

 

6. Passing A Healthcare Bill that was basically the Republicans plan in 1993 doesn't get the base to come out and show up to vote.  Now it will be repealed or reduced to virtually nothing.  If it was a more European Style Health Care System. We'd have people in the streets now protesting its imminent repeal.

 

The Silver Lining is that I think the next democratic candidate for president will be more from the Bernie Wing of The Party.  I can't see  the democrats nominating a Corporate DLC Democrat in 2020.  I could be wrong though.

post #67 of 123
As a foreigner, my opinion of Obama is that he was a great, solid president that did the very job every president should do, which is handling his successor a better country than the one he was handed.
In terms of economy, social issues, global relations and more, Obama did a great job, he did with grace and dignity, and never surrendered to populism, personal attack or mudslinging.
He was by no means perfect, nor did I agree on some policies and agendas he championed, but he did his job, and he did it well.
Even as what would be considered a soft/progressive republican in the USA, I'd would had voted for him on both occasions without a doubt, and I'm beyond embarrassed and angry on how low the bar he set as a president in terms of conduct, respect and empathy will fall with Trump following in his footsteps.
A good, sensible and reasonable president for bad, insensitive and unreasonable times, yet he endure and did his best.
He'll be missed.
post #68 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake Gambino View Post

If it was a more European Style Health Care System. We'd have people in the streets now protesting its imminent repeal.

If that were the case, it never would have passed in the first place.
post #69 of 123

Personally I think he was well above average domestically but somewhere between pretty bad to downright terrible on foreign policy.  I'm sure I'm in the minority here, and hindsight is 20/20 of course, but I think the Vietnam Syndrome clouded some of his judgement between 2010 - 2014.

post #70 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post


If that were the case, it never would have passed in the first place.


Not to mention it once again, would have made Obama a one-term President, as the current health care industry and the model that drives it is a huge segment of the American economy.  Introducing socialized medicine practically before the recovery from the 2008 collapse had started at all could easily have been a death knell for said recovery, as one of your major economic sectors takes a huge "hit" that there will never be any recovery from.

 

While that shouldn't be a reason not to pursue socialized medicine in the future, timing does matter.

 

And saying there would be "protests in the street" over its' repeal is kinda bologna.  All we would have heard from right-wing media for the last four years is every horror story about how it wasn't working.  Virtually every "natural causes" death in America would be politicized as "could've been avoided if it weren't for the new health care system."  And the people that were against the ACA would be even MORE against it because this time it actually would be socialism.  Which as we know, produces a rather visceral response in certain segments.

post #71 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Closer View Post
 

Personally I think he was well above average domestically but somewhere between pretty bad to downright terrible on foreign policy.  I'm sure I'm in the minority here, and hindsight is 20/20 of course, but I think the Vietnam Syndrome clouded some of his judgement between 2010 - 2014.

 

In all fairness, pretty much every post- World War II president had terrible foreign policy. 

post #72 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake Gambino View Post
 

Alright I am not trying the start a flame war here, but Here are five main gripes I have with Barry O

 

1. He did Nothing to Prosecute the Bankers for 2008

 

 

We might get a redo of this point once the Republicans tank the economy again. If the corruption that is coming causes another recession, heads will need to roll and I can see Sanders or Warren not letting them get away with this shit again if either is elected President.   

post #73 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbrother View Post
 

 

We might get a redo of this point once the Republicans tank the economy again. If the corruption that is coming causes another recession, heads will need to roll and I can see Sanders or Warren not letting them get away with this shit again if either is elected President.   

 

I just had a image of Pres. Elizabeth Warren sitting in the oval office telling the GOP leadership to "get the fuck out of my office and only come back when you've grown up..."

post #74 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clarence Boddicker View Post
 

 

In all fairness, pretty much every post- World War II president had terrible foreign policy. 

It's a matter of degrees, I guess.  A big sticking point for me is "allowing" (for the lack of a better term) mass genocide in Syria.  The "red line" fiasco was one of the few GOP memes that actually was legitimate. 

post #75 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Closer View Post
 

It's a matter of degrees, I guess.  A big sticking point for me is "allowing" (for the lack of a better term) mass genocide in Syria.  The "red line" fiasco was one of the few GOP memes that actually was legitimate. 

 

Curious - what would you have had Obama do in Syria after the red line? I'm not trolling, just asking.

post #76 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post
 

 

Curious - what would you have had Obama do in Syria after the red line? I'm not trolling, just asking.

Ill be honest...I dont know.  Air strikes targeting the Assad regime + a no fly zone were always floated as plausible courses, but we didnt want to disrupt our Iran nuclear talks so we sat on our hands and did nothing.

 

Guess the question is: was it worth losing 500,000 Syrian lives in order to strike the Iran nuclear deal?

 

That's not even touching on the credibility factor (which again, was a GOP meme but I believe is legit).  You cant say that were not going to be the worlds policeman, then 5 minutes later say "But in this case we have a red line," and then do nothing when that red line is crossed.  Not surprising that Putin was confident he could get away with Crimea after that.

post #77 of 123
I'm not convinced that the absense of Iran nuclear talks would have affected much. There simply wasn't an appetite for a significant American military presence. Syria is one of the conflicts where people will say "well, we could have...", but the fact is that we simply don't know. Airstrikes against Assad could have resulted in the same situation we have today, just more brutal and complicated.

That said, I don't think it's fair to say the administration "did nothing".
post #78 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Draco Senior View Post

There simply wasn't an appetite for a significant American military presence. 

Agree, but that doesnt really matter at the end of the day unless your argument is that the political cost would be too great.

post #79 of 123

Assad is very much 'better the devil you know' regardless of his genocidal tendencies. We (the west) simply do not have a realistic follow-up strategy once we bomb the shit out of these dictators. You only have to look at Libya to see what happens. Transitional governments leave massive power vacuums and are essentially overrun by insurgents and Western troops on the ground are simply soft targets who inspire recruitment in the thousands. Without Assad, it's highly likely ISIS would have pushed further into Syria, and there isn't a damn thing the moderate rebels would have been able to do about it.

 

Robert Fisk did a good report (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/syrian-conflict-rebels-jabhat-al-nusra-no-rebels-a7462986.html), where he pointed out quite rightly that the press do not get the viewpoint of the moderate rebels because if they tried to, they would simply decapitate any Western journalist that came into their territory... there are no moderates anymore, just Al-Qaeda offshoots. As such, we get only two sides Assad and Civilians, when it's inherently more complicated and dangerous than that.

post #80 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by flint View Post
 

Assad is very much 'better the devil you know' regardless of his genocidal tendencies. We (the west) simply do not have a realistic follow-up strategy once we bomb the shit out of these dictators. You only have to look at Libya to see what happens. Transitional governments leave massive power vacuums and are essentially overrun by insurgents and Western troops on the ground are simply soft targets who inspire recruitment in the thousands. Without Assad, it's highly likely ISIS would have pushed further into Syria, and there isn't a damn thing the moderate rebels would have been able to do about it.

 

Robert Fisk did a good report, where he pointed out quite rightly that the press do not get the viewpoint of the moderate rebels because if they tried to, they would simply decapitate any Western journalist that came into their territory... there are no moderates anymore, just Al-Qaeda offshoots. As such, we get only two sides Assad and Civilians, when it's inherently more complicated and dangerous than that.

What about a middle ground?  Leverage diplomacy to remove the chemical weapons (95% of them at least) while retaliating when war crimes are committed and enforcing a no fly zone so that things like barrel bombs cant be used?

 

Im not a military strategist, but one would assume we could look at standing by and watching 500,000 people get murdered on one end of the spectrum, us nuking them on the other and found a happy medium.

post #81 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Closer View Post
 

What about a middle ground?  Leverage diplomacy to remove the chemical weapons (95% of them at least) while retaliating when war crimes are committed and enforcing a no fly zone so that things like barrel bombs cant be used?

 

Im not a military strategist, but one would assume we could look at standing by and watching 500,000 people get murdered on one end of the spectrum, us nuking them on the other and found a happy medium.

 

It's what we tried. Hell, it's what Russia tried before they got directly involved. Assad simply ignored us and internal politics within Syria brushed off the Russian attempt at a change in leadership which infuriated Putin no end. The West pretty much geared up on a war footing and Russia vetoed and intervened before we got our individual acts together. They provided Assad with all the weapons and support he needed, which also makes Putin look strong and the West look weak in comparison. Coupled with protecting his military interests in Syria and making a profit on the weapons, diplomacy isn't going to cut it now.

 

And Chemical Weapons, Barrel Bombs... horrific... but these rebels are entrenched in civilian areas. I doubt the civilians would feel much better if the net result of our interventions was to make it so they can get killed by conventional weaponry.

 

A No-fly zone would simply have let the rebels push forward further, prolonging the conflict or ending it in the least desirable manner of letting al-Nusra and co push further into Syria. Assad is a monster, but these are not people we want to be supporting. The Free Syrian Army, ostensibly the 'good guys' if you like, pretty much don't exist anymore, and somehow we've ended up on the same side as people that would quite happily murder us in our sleep, simply by association against Assad.

 

With regards to retaliating on War Crimes... again... how and with what means beyond direct intervention? Toppling Assad by diplomatic means (sanctions and so forth) would probably have had the same result as bombing him out, even if it was possible. Who in the government could we put in place that would have meant an end to the Civil War? And if that Civil War doesn't end, how does the new guy deal with the rebels except in the same bloody horrific manner?


Edited by flint - 1/11/17 at 11:25pm
post #82 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by flint View Post
 

 

It's what we tried. Hell, it's what Russia tried before they got directly involved. Assad simply ignored us and internal politics within Syria brushed off the Russian attempt at a change in leadership which infuriated Putin no end. The West pretty much geared up on a war footing and Russia vetoed and intervened before we got our individual acts together. They provided Assad with all the weapons and support he needed, which also makes Putin look strong and the West look weak in comparison. Coupled with protecting his military interests in Syria and making a profit on the weapons, diplomacy isn't going to cut it now.

 

And Chemical Weapons, Barrel Bombs... horrific... but these rebels are entrenched in civilian areas. I doubt the civilians would feel much better if the net result of our interventions was to make it so they can get killed by conventional weaponry.

 

A No-fly zone would simply have let the rebels push forward further, prolonging the conflict or ending it in the least desirable manner of letting al-Nusra and co push further into Syria. Assad is a monster, but these are not people we want to be supporting. The Free Syrian Army, ostensibly the 'good guys' if you like, pretty much don't exist anymore, and somehow we've ended up on the same side as people that would quite happily murder us in our sleep, simply by association against Assad.

 

With regards to retaliating on War Crimes... again... how and with what means beyond direct intervention? Toppling Assad by diplomatic means (sanctions and so forth) would probably have had the same result as bombing him out, even if it was possible. Who in the government could we put in place that would have meant an end to the Civil War? And if that Civil War doesn't end, how does the new guy deal with the rebels except in the same bloody horrific manner?

There's been some great reporting by people like Michael Weiss and Jamie Kirchick that strongly challenge your first paragraph.  Ill see if I can dig up some specific examples, but the gist is that our priorities were Iran deal first, Syria second.  I'm not sure if youve read Red Notice by Bill Browder (great book, btw) but its not too dissimilar to when Kerry tried to stonewall the Magnitsky Act as the administrations priority at the time was the Russian "reset."  Word apparently was that if Kerry wanted the Sec of State job when Clinton left, the one thing he had to do was continue to block this legislation from making it through committee to be brought up for a vote (despite broad bipartisan support).

 

Ill just say that I'm usually against military intervention, and I completely understand the fact that the country elected Obama in large part because of his promise to balance out the militarism of the Bush years, but I'm going to almost always be in favor of it when a dictator is massacring hundreds of thousands of people.  I think it's our duty to intervene.  As for how specifically to go about it, thats what our elected leaders our for - to figure it out. 

post #83 of 123
Some limited airstrikes against regime assets would not have brought down Assad. To do the job properly, a large military deployment would have almost certainly been required. Not only that, but intervening powers have to account for the subsequent power vacuum and the need for international consensus to guarantee stability.

Syria is bound to be unstable for a good long while, and there are no easy answers.
post #84 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Closer View Post
 

There's been some great reporting by people like Michael Weiss and Jamie Kirchick that strongly challenge your first paragraph.  Ill see if I can dig up some specific examples, but the gist is that our priorities were Iran deal first, Syria second.  I'm not sure if youve read Red Notice by Bill Browder (great book, btw) but its not too dissimilar to when Kerry tried to stonewall the Magnitsky Act as the administrations priority at the time was the Russian "reset."  Word apparently was that if Kerry wanted the Sec of State job when Clinton left, the one thing he had to do was continue to block this legislation from making it through committee to be brought up for a vote (despite broad bipartisan support).

 

Ill just say that I'm usually against military intervention, and I completely understand the fact that the country elected Obama in large part because of his promise to balance out the militarism of the Bush years, but I'm going to almost always be in favor of it when a dictator is massacring hundreds of thousands of people.  I think it's our duty to intervene.  As for how specifically to go about it, thats what our elected leaders our for - to figure it out. 


That's an awfully slippery slope you're presenting us with.  What exactly is the threshold here?  How many people does a dictator/tyrannical government have to kill before we intervene?  Does it have to be like, "gun them down in the street" mass kills or do "disappeared in the night over the course of years" kills count too?

 

Moreover, where are we going to get the troops to invade and occupy virtually every dictatorship on Earth?  We would never NOT be at war if we intervened every time a Dictator started killing people.

post #85 of 123

I would say both Congo and Sudan are good examples of comparable slaughters going on during Obama's tenure that would haven been less contentious and probably easier to intervene in, neither of which happened.

 

In fact, in Congo's case, one of Obama's diplomatic picks was instrumental in hopefully reaching an accord between the two sides, not that he'll get much credit for that, because they're not in the news anymore. With Syria, there isn't even a coherent force to be negotiated with. There are close to a dozen different factions on the opposing side to Assad, broadly split into four alliances, all of which are fighting each other as well as Assad. Two of them are out and out fundamentalist psychopaths and another one contains a significant proportion of fundamentalist psychopaths.

 

Iran was a factor - at least for the US, I don't dispute... but the two things are not unconnected. Iran is a supported of Assad. And the focus of our discussion here is "Should Obama have done more in Syria?". My argument is (and has been for years, as I've brought this up in the War Drums thread before) that as far as Syria is concerned, there is no political or military move that can be made that doesn't make things considerably worse. Faced with a realistic political solution with Iran or a tinder box in Syria, leaving Syria alone is really the only option.

 

Hell, I'm even wary about the support and training that we are offering the Kurds in the north of Syria, and that's been largely successful. A few years after this situation calms down, those guys are going to turn their eyes north to Turkey, I assure you. And we'll be all like "How did this happen???"... again.

 

The political solution to a lot of these problems is actually really crushingly direct. Put the thumbscrews onto the Saudi's and other Gulf Countries and get them to stop funding and supporting these guys. And there's no way any world leader would dare do that and I would assign Obama no blame in not doing so either.


Edited by flint - 1/12/17 at 4:24am
post #86 of 123
post #87 of 123

Obama gives his final Presidential Medal of Freedom... to Diamond Joe Biden (who had no idea it was going to happen).

 

https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedNews/status/819655043959820288

 

Biden's reaction is the best thing I've seen today.

post #88 of 123

One of the things I will miss most about Barack Obama is Obama the Book Nerd. Sure, Bush and Rove had their reading contests and Clinton liked a pulpy thriller and Hillary was very into her mysteries, but has there been a president in recent history who was so passionate about fiction? Who understands the importance of fiction as it relates to empathy and our shared humanity? Who saw himself as a writer first, and everything else second? It's this element of how Obama defines himself that makes me very excited to see what he does after he leaves office. He's talked about writing a novel - and I hope he does. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/16/books/transcript-president-obama-on-what-books-mean-to-him.html?_r=0


Key quote: "I thought “Gone Girl” was a well-constructed, well-written book."

post #89 of 123
Obama just commuted the bulk of Chelsea Manning's prison sentence, a move that would have been exceedingly unlikely under Trump. She'll be released from prison in five months instead of 2045.
post #90 of 123
I wonder if ol' Ed Snowden is next. His crimes were less than Manning's.

Maybe that's a little trickier seeing how there's no conviction to overturn or sentence to commute.
post #91 of 123
Snowden's not getting pardoned. The press release draws specific comparisons between them. Manning actually went to trial for her actions and was convicted. Snowden immediately fled the country and has been holed up in Russia for years.

And legally speaking, Manning's crimes were lesser. Nothing she leaked was rated above Secret, and it was all stuff she was cleared to access in the first place. Snowden leaked Top Secret documents, and used credentials from his co-workers to access some of them (per news stories at the time).
post #92 of 123

Assange's butthole would be puckered up something fierce about now.

 

Except he's a weasel-ass dude and is just gonna hand wave away his earlier commitments. 

post #93 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post
 

Assange's butthole would be puckered up something fierce about now.

 

Except he's a weasel-ass dude and is just gonna hand wave away his earlier commitments. 


Yeah. Per the Wikileaks Twitter feed, Assange claimed a week ago that he would willingly be extradited to the US if Manning was freed. Obama just called his bluff.

 

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/819630102787059713


Edited by Dent6084 - 1/17/17 at 3:31pm
post #94 of 123
Tom Cotton is already accusing Obama of freeing a traitor. Expect Trump to weigh in shortly.
post #95 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Draco Senior View Post

Obama just commuted the bulk of Chelsea Manning's prison sentence, a move that would have been exceedingly unlikely under Trump. She'll be released from prison in five months instead of 2045.

Color me genuinely surprised. I was really convinced that Obama would never relent on this. I'm very pleased to be proven wrong.
post #96 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reasor View Post

Color me genuinely surprised. I was really convinced that Obama would never relent on this. I'm very pleased to be proven wrong.

Its a genius move, politically.
Obama is on his way out, so he won't see consequences for this.
Manning has already served a long sentence compared to other similar cases.
Her status with the LGBT community has made her a special case (for good reason; she should had never been kept to an all male military prison)
And it calls Assange's bluff.

Hell, Assange might even give up info on Trump/Putin in order to get off easy himself.
post #97 of 123
I'll be shocked if Assange keeps his word and allows himself to be extradited. He'll more than likely quibble with a detail of the pardon to get himself out of fulfilling his vow.
post #98 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reasor View Post

Color me genuinely surprised. I was really convinced that Obama would never relent on this. I'm very pleased to be proven wrong.

Doesn't surprise me at all. Anyone with eyes can see that he was often often walking on eggshells to keep from arming Republicans with the ammunition to hurt his party, but there were too many molehills and so little time.
post #99 of 123

post #100 of 123

There was some discussion that he should let Bergdahl off as well.  I don't know if he can yet.  It's a bit more complicated.  Still, there's somone who also doesn't want to be sitting through a Trump term.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › The Presidency of Barack Obama