You're viewing a single thread.
This is some pro level trolling. She's gonna give some of them aneurisms.
I know Obama was unjustly ostracized for wearing a tan suit, but I honestly (I'm European) don't know why a tan suit is a bad thing? Is it frowned upon for some reason? Do tan suits have a backstory (before the Obama thing) that I should know about?
Honest question.
It was absurd nonsense; yet one of many examples of how the far-right in our country will manufacture outrage just to justify their existence.
There was another incident wherein the far-right went after Obama used Dijon mustard on something.
The far right was reaching for anything at all they could personally attack Obama with. The only things they ever came up with was the tan suit and him asking for Dijon mustard. Compare that to any recent Republican candidate.
Don't forget not saluting a military officer. Even though, as a non-military civilian, he shouldn't be using military salutes anyway.
Obama knew from a young age he wanted to be in politics, so he lived his life as neatly as possible towards that objective, including graduating with honors from top American schools and leaving a manicured political track record of his path.
Republicans wanted so hard to hate on him but they couldn't find anything. He ran an excellent presidency, he spoke very carefully with great charisma, and his background was pristine.
That's why any controversies about Obama had to be fabricated. Republicans attacked him for the mustard, the color of one of his suits, how he rode a bike, how he was physically fit and very good at basketball (an urban sport). They fabricated claims on his birth certificate. They blamed him for stuff that happened on someone else's watch (why didn't Obama keep us safe on 9/11? Why didn't he prevent the economic crash of 2008?)
They attacked him with that nonsense because they couldn't find anything else to attack him on.
You forgot the terrorist fist bump he shared with his wife.
Drone killing non combatants on the reg under obama was cool with you?
Apparently it was cool with the Republicans. They didn't bother attacking him on that.
Really cool since Dementia DonOLD quickly racked up more than Obama (did more in two years than Obama in eitght) and had to change the rules about reporting them so he didn't look so bad. They're clowns.
Hmmmm it's like the decision to make drone strikes the prerogative of the office of the president potentially minimised them or something. What's Biden's number up to?
No idea. They don't have to report them anymore thanks to Dementia DonOLD.
They were children of color, of course the Republicans were cool with theor deaths.
What made you think this was relevant to the conversation? We're talking about things Republicans fabricated to attack Obama. Him using more drones than any other president to kill brown people was a good thing for them.
This piece painted a picture where Obama did no wrong, which is incorrect.
This piece painted a picture where Obama did no wrong, which is incorrect.
What piece, the comment? Nothing they said was incorrect. Republicans couldn't/wouldn't attack him on it because their record is even worse and they don't really view bombing brown people as inherently bad.
They attacked him with that nonsense because they couldn’t find anything else to attack him on.
From the comment i replied to.
Pretty clear to me.
That doesn't say he was flawless, it said they couldn't find anything to attack him on, which is true. They liked the whole "blowing up brown people with missiles" thing. That comment isn't unilateral praise of Obama, it's an explanation of why Republicans couldn't find dirt they could use on him, because the dirt that was there was on their faces too.
Those are military choices. People need to stop imagining these law-degree prime ministers as kings that control every aspect of government. The military had been developing drones for a while, and having superior tech wanted to use them more. The wars were started by the Republican jackasses before Obama and we were already stuck in them. There's a very limited playbook Obama could draw from to have any influence in that situation. He simply did what any US president would have done by continuing with the mess left by the previous admin and following the recommendations of the generals when it comes to the approach to war. Military stuff was one of Obama's weakest knowledge areas, so he did what any educated person would do and simply let the seasoned experts handle it.
If you ask me WHEN I had a problem with it, it was when we let Bush start a series of unwinnable wars promising it would be done in 3 months and over some BS excuse that everyone knew was nonsense going into it. I don't blame Obama too much for the tech advancements in drones, and I don't blame Biden too harshly for the exit out of Afghanistan. I blame the morons that create that unsolvable problem, promising it would be cheap and easy and would go great.
You realize the President is in control of the military, and decisions involving it?
He could have stopped it.
He could have said 'hey, stop killing children who have never harmed us'.
No one was saying those things.
Nobody that understands how this works could have said that. Once you are already at war, it's either sending more thousands of American soldiers with guns firing at anything that moves, and then civilians die anyway, or use the drones to shoot at targets with precision, and then civilians die anyway. The only people that think civilian deaths during war are 100% avoidable are people that have no idea what they are talking about and like to wax lyrical from behind a keyboard.
There was one other place where it could have been stopped, and that's earlier by preventing war mongers from gaining power and starting the wars in the first place. I'm sure you did your part then using your vote effectively to prevent Republicans from gaining power for 8 years, just as you are ready to vote effectively now to prevent a Republican from returning this Nov.
Are you so blind that you only see the world thru a filter provided by a political party?
The USA has been doing horribly illegal things for a long time.
Pretending murder is cool because the other guys did it too is horrible logic at best.
People conducting their lives and basing their morality on what the other person did is a downward spiral trap for society.
As for what i did, smoke some DMT and ask the elves. My soul is clean. Everyone ignored my warnings, i was kidnapped and tortured for months to retaliate.
It’s impossible to avoid civilian deaths, and yet I have killed exactly zero civilians in my life. Curious.
Because I guess to be presidential you have to wear dark colors when talking about serious topics? It was very stupid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_tan_suit_controversy
But to be clear, because OP was asking.
This was complete bullshit. The hero of the Conservatives, Ronald “Let’s trade Missles for Hostages with the Iranians and use the proceeds to Defy Congress in Nicaragua” Reagan wore tan suits.
Look up “terrorist fist jab” and then subsequently realize that racists don’t use thoughts or logic, only hatred and idiocy.
Tan suits are very slightly less formal than navy, grey, or black. That's literally it. Completely a case of idiots looking for a reason to be mad and justify their preexisting biases.
They did the same thing when he rode a bike with... A bike helmet on.
A tan suit is frowned upon by regressives if the occupant is black. Same as using mustard. And greeting anyone too casually.
It’s fantastic and I’m loving this 🍿
I hope she posts herself putting Dijon on a burger as a follow-up