Hacker News Reader

During the Obama administration it became legal to assassinate US citizens without trial as long as they are presumed "terrorists" and aren't currently on US soil. It was a deeply flawed presidency that deserves much more critique than it has ever received.

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/30/obama-killed-a-16-year-o...

I have a suspicion that any American President would have had to do this. Its true that these things did happen under Obama, but I am hesitant to think that someone else could have done better.

The United States killed its own citizens in military operations long before Obama.

Well, Obama OLC's legal memo advocated it explicitly, though.

From Wikipedia: 'Barron's memo was described by The New York Times Editorial Board as "a slapdash pastiche of legal theories — some based on obscure interpretations of British and Israeli law — that was clearly tailored to the desired result."[7] A lawyer for the ACLU described the memo as "disturbing" and "ultimately an argument that the president can order targeted killings of Americans without ever having to account to anyone outside the executive branch."[8]'

One could say it "became executive doctrine" then.

What "doctrine" is this? Since World War 1, when the military has deemed it necessary to kill combatants who happen to be American citizens abroad, it has done so.

This kind of thing is why people say the dems and repubs are the same party with two coats of paint.

Before 2008 there were a lot of issues the mainstream left were vocal about. 8 years of Obama and only a select few even got lip service. Now neither the democrats nor any vocal factions of the left seem to care about them.

The UniParty.

However... This is where I'll make a point. The GOP and Dems absolutely both hate Trump. That's the funny thing about bubble types and die-hard liberals is that it seems neither can see just how little the GOP wanted Trump. They just didn't have a riggable system like the DNC did.

That like him or not, Trump is very much disrupting the many of the plans of those politicians that while pretending to be against each other have almost identical goals. That's not a defense of Trump, it's an understanding that if you hate the GOP, you should understand Trump is their enemy and it doesn't make sense to lump them together in your bias, at least not all the time.

EDIT: LOL, apparently because some Republicans like Grham and Rand Paul support Trump he has the entire GOP establishment. Except Flake, McCain, Romney, Paul Ryan, Priebus, and this small list that is effectively still against https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Republicans_who_oppose... .... Look, I get that it makes you sad to hear that Trump isn't liked by the people you don't like, but if you think the GOP wanted or wants Trump now - you're foolish. They're STUCK with him now, that's a big difference. The GOP as a hole will halfheartedly "fight" for him, while wishing he was dead.

That maybe used to be the case, but they've rallied behind him now. His approvability is 90% among people who identify as Republicans.

You still see occasional "wildcard" moments peek through, though like his (IMO wonderful) decision to withdraw from Syria, which managed to draw condemnation from everyone, Democrats and Republicans alike. But unfortunately, it seems it's all bluster as Trump is wont to do, and will likely not amount to much.

I'm curious, why do you believe Trump's decision to withdraw from Syria is a good one?

I support the eventual withdrawal from Syria, but packing up now will place a large burden on Kurdish minority groups in the region, who deserve better. It will not be the first time we supported the Kurds while they advanced US goals and then pulled out ASAP.

It also seems the decision was motivated by conversations between Trump and Erdogan, which makes me think the Turkish will resume subjugating Kurds in the region when US exits.

I think we should withdraw by replacing more and more guns-and-boots people with books-hammers-meds people.

Leaving a power vacuum to be filled by Turkey or Russia seems to be the worst option, and imo a betrayal to our Kurdish allies who would not be treated fairly under Turkish or Russian control.

Edit: I really mean this question in good faith. This is my present understanding of the situation, but I do not believe I have the whole picture. I really appreciate the time anyone could take to point out an inconsistency or misunderstanding.

I think a basic problem with your analysis is that there will always be an emotionally compelling reason to commit troops to enterprises like this. We have to support our allies, the Kurds. Saddam Hussein and his sons are cruel dictators. Iranian theocrats are intent on destroying Israel. There are concentration camps in North Korea. Gaddafi is a dictator and sponsor of terrorists. Etcetera.

These reasons aren't wrong, those things are true. The problem is that they lead down a path of interventionism which hasn't worked very well. For example, Iraq. Hussein really was a cruel dictator but by invading and destabilizing the region the conflict killed a million or more people, generated ISIS, and left the area tumultuous.

I also want good things for the people of Syria. I don't think it's fair for them to be ruled by Asad. Where I disagree with people who advocate continued military intervention is that I don't think this is the right way to help them.

I think the right way to help people is by exemplifying the virtues of our system of governance and economics. We should become a country that others want to emulate. We should spread good ideas, like the rule of law, human and civil rights, regulated but mostly free markets, etc. Other countries will desire our prosperity and change of their own accord to become more like us, not because we're pointing guns at them, but because they genuinely want to live the way we've shown is possible.

I see this approach as unraveling the networks of evil in the world. Russia changing to be less of an oligarchy, permit more free press, better cooperation with the world, more Democratic will likely entail less support of Assad.

So much this. The "great" thing about the world being a mostly terrible place, is the government can pick and choose where to intervene for reasons other than helping people. This gives the government some cover because people say "well Hussein is a bad guy" even though we ignore the bad guys in a bunch of other countries out there for completely mysterious reasons.

I think, actually that the region would have had its melt-down one way or the other. The Arab spring would have happened anyway. And he most likely would have swept Hussein away. Vietnam told us, that in the long run, no foreign power projection prevails against local interests aligned with local powers.

And it will happen again, in about 1.5 generations- waving over a region, who will be very much beyond peak oil. Which will have all those in power at that moment, trying to vent the tension the good old European style- by sending those revolutionary's with all the emotional words and no plans on how to make the world a better place into endless ditch wars.

So the board for the great game is been lay out- now the most relevant game piece has to be determined. Who is the Germany of the middle east?

As in a currently disassembled power-house without resources, that reassembled is capable of innovation and thus is a danger for all current major players.

It's definitely not bluster, he fired his Secretary of Defense over his refusal to pull out of the conflict. It's one of the most consequential decisions of his tenure so far.

If the GOP has such disdain for Trump, then why do traditional conservatives in Congress continue to support him?

Because they are more closely aligned with the populist wing of the Republican party than the neo-conservative/elitist/globalist wing of the Republican party. The elitist wing has been the dominant force in the Republican party for decades at least.

> If the GOP has such disdain for Trump, then why do traditional conservatives in Congress continue to support him?

Probably two reasons:

1) They fear his base, which can mount primary challenges to unseat them when they're open with their distain (see: Flake, Jeff).

2) Trump has been useful in allowing them to pursue much of their traditional agenda: tax cuts, deregulation, court picks, etc.

Simply untrue given the rank and file GOP support of Trump through all legislative goals, except McCain on Obamacare and the wall.

> Granted, looking back I don't think he explicitly said those would be his top policies, it was just beliefs people, including me, imbued into his presidency. It was a very successful "Hope and Change" marketing campaign.

Exactly. He was a chimera: the ambiguity in his slogans let each person see in him what they wanted to see, and his brief political record gave few specifics to challenge those desires. The real work of politics is to decide on the details of policy in the midst of real disagreement, and ideally politicians would be very clear about their thoughts on those details to help the public to properly have its say.

>For some reason I thought privacy, freedom of speech and transparency would be priorities but they weren't.

He's a constitutional law professor! He loves his blackberry! Those girls that campaigned and danced around for Obama were hot. Yay his skin color doesn't matter - except it totally matters! He'll stop the wars! He's so cool he tweets out things!

Because you were sold on an extremely effective misinformation campaign specifically targeted at you. It's not that you should feel bad - but I'd hope you'd be able to see it if it happened again (and it is happening again, it's just opposite now).

... I'm sorry, perhaps I'm bitter because I saw exactly what this was in 2007, then had to put up with 8 years of watching the media entirely cover for him. It was annoying. What's worse is that even now people still fall for the "I had a scandal free presidency" absolute lie.

History is written by the victors, and his scandalous policies did not lose in the court of law. As it turns out, all the shitty shit he did was perfectly legal[1] (And also supported by most of the country.)

The current crop of scandals is, ah, personal failings and run of the mill conflicts of interest. Obama's cabinet picks were a bit better then the current crop, in that respect. Well, except for Hillary's email server. Which he has masterfully distanced himself politically from. Trump has not done the same for his problematic subordinates.

[1] Which says a lot about how restrictive on government power the constitution actually is.

>Well, except for Hillary's email server.

Or the fact that she was the Secretary of State while her husband's charity was accepting millions of dollars in donations from leaders of foreign countries (the very same people who the American people were relying on her to oppose whenever their interests conflicted with those of the American people).

> I'm sorry, perhaps I'm bitter because I saw exactly what this was in 2007

And what exactly did you see back in 2007? Because it sounds to me like you are merely describing politics since the advent of television at the national level in the current U.S. two-party system.

Do you really mean to say you saw the same type of fake news campaign spread across social media in 2007 as is described in recent NYT pieces wrt the 2016 election (e.g., troll accounts so widespread that a Facebook lobbyist recognized one as one of his mom's Facebook friends)? If so can we see an archive.org link of what you wrote back then?

You forgot about the "It's Just Metadata" argument:

https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-aclu-demolish-its-jus...

It's disappointing coming from the man who campaigned on the promise "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution."

Obama was one of our better Republican presidents....

That's a pretty fatuous statement when you consider the goals of the GOP over the past 38 years. Did Obama work with the GOP to privatize entitlement programs? Did he pass a major tax cut? Did he appoint pro-life judges? Did he move towards transforming the Department of Education to state block grants?

That's a strangely specific list of questions, but here is an attempt to address them:

> Did Obama work with the GOP to privatize entitlement programs?

No, but he often supported or considered cuts to Social Security and Medicare (including in the context of working with the GOP). For example, Obama's executive order 13531 established the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform ("Simpson-Bowles"), which recommended cuts to Social Security.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Fiscal_... https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/05/us/social-programs-face-c...

> Did he pass a major tax cut?

Yes, of course!? The largest component of the stimulus bill was tax relief.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvest... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvest... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Relief,_Unemployment_Insur... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Taxpayer_Relief_Act_o... https://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/us/politics/19taxes.html

> Did he appoint pro-life judges?

Obama nominated a judge who failed to be confirmed in part because of Democratic opposition to his (purported) "votes in the legislature to retain Confederate insignia in the state flag of Georgia, restrict abortion, and ban same-sex marriage".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_P._Boggs

It's a little unclear what Sonya Sotomayor's position on abortion is.

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/us/politics/28abortion.ht...

> Did he move towards transforming the Department of Education to state block grants?

No, but the Obama Administration supported funding for the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund in the stimulus bill, a relatively significant block grant from the Department of Education.

https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/factsheet/stabil...

It's not a strangely specific list if you look at the GOP platform in each Presidential election year from 1976 through 2016. Starting in 1980, at the conclusion of the national "ideological sort", the common thread of GOP policy goals has been:

1. Reduce taxes and simplify the tax code

2. Appoint federalist pro-life judges

3. Privatize federal programs that can be privatized

4. Devolve funding and authority to the states through block grants

5. Oppose gun control

6. Require a balanced budget, and cut spending to do it

7. Subsidize school choice

8. Reform and cut welfare

9. Reduce the influence of unions

10. Increase defense spending

I didn't make those up; I literally went to the UCSB Presidency Project for each of those 11 cycles and made a text file capturing the policy objectives of the GOP (several months ago, not just as a freaky obsessive response to your comment).

There are other policy items that come and go; for instance, in the 80s and early 90s, the GOP was the party of term limits. Starting in the 90s, they became the party of tort, liability, and malpractice reform. For a brief, sparkling moment, they were the party of guaranteed-issue private health insurance. But those 10 items are basically unchanged, and none of them are Democratic goals.

To your specific arguments:

1. Obama opposed privatization and expanded federal entitlements dramatically.

2. Obama increased several taxes, and increased the tax burden on upper-income families and in support of the ACA; those increases would have been starker had he not been held hostage by a united GOP legislature that, for instance, required him to extend some of the Bush tax cats in exchange for funding the government. Not to mention: his biggest cuts were part of the ARRA, which prevented a potential second Great Depression.

3. Obama did not appoint pro-life or federalist judges of any sort.

4. Obama presided over the implementation of Common Core, which dramatically increased the federal influence over K-12 education and made him the bête noire of conservative educational wonks.

So, no, President Obama was not a "good Republican President". Respectfully, I think you might basically have to not know what the Republican party has stood for for the last ~40 years to believe that.

Fyi, I am not the commenter above who compared Obama to a "Republican president", and I tried to stick directly to your questions.

You'll note that the answers were mostly "no", except for whether he passed a major tax cut.

My comment was somewhat tongue in cheek. I'm well aware of the goals of the GOP, thank you very much.

I'm also very much aware of the fact that the GOP was obstructions to his agenda, effectively neutering his work. (Also hopeful for the destruction of the GOP once Mueller is done with his work).

That said, Obama's support for the fiasco in Afghanistan is not "liberal" in any way, and his failure to even bring up the notion of the criminality of the 2008 financial crisis showed that he was beholden to his corporate donors more than the country.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/23/untouc...

Well, that, or unwilling to see millions of Americans put out of work simply so he can make a vain statement about his principles. But tomato/tomato.

Nice spin there.

Obama was also the "tech" president. I wonder to what extent this increased surveillance is a result of the scalability advantages software brings. More than all previous presidents combined is pretty significant. Did he spend that much more?