Escher's Waterfall
Bluelight Crew
I bet everyone here are just sheeple who believe that the Titanic really sank.
All of these are plausible factors. And there is, of course, no single answer. Different people disapprove of Obama's performance for different reasons. Here are mine:
After denouncing his predecessor's warrantless wiretapping, Obama presided over the construction of a surveillance state more expansive than any democracy has ever known. What he hid includes documented violations of the Fourth Amendment. And the so-called reforms he urged to satiate the public are a cynical farce.
The Obama administration hasn't merely violated the law in its failure to prosecute what the president and attorney general acknowledge to be illegal torture. It has also suppressed a still-unreleased Senate report about that torture and done nothing to prevent the next president from restarting "enhanced interrogation."
The Obama administration continues to wage the most costly, ruinous war in the modern era: the War on Drugs. Obama did not try and fail to end the drug war. He didn't even try.
When the Obama administration kills innocent people in a drone strike, it does not acknowledge its mistake, apologize, or compensate the family, nor does it articulate how it will prevent such tragedies in the future. Instead, the president just keeps quiet. He suppresses the number of innocents killed, preventing anyone outside the executive branch from judging the effectiveness or morality of drone policy. He invokes the state-secrets doctrine to keep the courts from judging whether he is violating the Constitution. And he hides even his own team's legal reasoning.
Obama took two actions that set extremely dangerous precedents: He established a secret kill list, put the name of an American citizen on that list, and ordered his execution by drone strike without charges or trial or any due process. And he waged a war of choice in Libya without permission from Congress.
Under Obama, the national-security state is out of control. Set aside his policies, whatever you think about them. This is a president who let his director of national intelligence, James Clapper, lie in sworn testimony to Congress without consequences. His CIA director, John Brennan, presided over surveillance of Senate Intelligence Committee operations, also without consequence.
Compared to his predecessors, Obama has been extremely aggressive in his persecution of whistleblowers and journalists who've worked with whistleblowers.
Idk who would be worse. Hilary, Mary alice herbert, or Elizebeth warren? All far left with the novelty of being the first female president on their side. Hilary may be the worst though..
Dropper, HiIlary might actually be the most qualified given her insider experience. A lot of people will vote for her. Despite that, she should not run. The children and spouses of politicians should never be permitted to run, no matter how qualified they might be. Nepotism, dynasties, and royalty are all bad things. Also, what do you mean by "far left?" Hilary is relatively conservative/centrist, is she not? To me, far left would be somebody like David Campos (progressive, gay, former undocumented immigrant running for california assembly).
we've always been @war w/ macedonia
//am i misreading fyrom?
So mods are allowed to have alts. That is some BS if you ask me.