Why do many Muslims have a positive view of Barack Obama?

[Slog]

Baffles me.

Guy is a war criminal who killed thousands upon thousands of innocent men, women and children in Muslim countries such as Pakistan or Yemen with total disregard for human life or even bothering to check whether the targets were indeed terrorists.

In his time there were several high profile blunders in the Middle East such as the toppling of Mubarak and Gaddafi which his administration actively encouraged. These countries are now a terrible mess. And let's not even talk about his administrations role in the mess that is Syria

In my opinion and in many instances it is backed by fact, no US president (or any world leader post WW2) has had such a detrimental and negative effect on the Muslim world as Obama.

He is a war criminal who had left the middle easy and the Muslim world in a mess leading to the rise of ISIS. His policies have destabilised many Muslim countries and his total and utter lack of humanness and empathy when killing innocent children and women in drone strikes carried out with little basis or flimsy information have led to murder of thousands upon thousands of Muslims.

The list goes on.

Obama is a war criminal and it boggles me how so many Muslims see him as a symbol of leader who has empathy towards Muslims.

 

[enkidu_]

Who ? Towering majority of Muslims I interact with see Obomber as what he is : a war criminal, even though more cosmetic and deceptive than others.

I also agree with your assessment that he has been the single most toxic political figure to the Islamic world post-WWII, and considering his farcical Cairo speech you'd think it was dully premeditated.

Killary would just have continued his policies, even if Trump is no perfect, at least let's hope when it comes to foreign policy he doesn't follow the previous administration's way.

 

[Slog]

Who ? Towering majority of Muslims I interact with see Obomber as what he is : a war criminal, even though more cosmetic and deceptive than others.

I also agree with your assessment that he has been the single most toxic political figure to the Islamic world post-WWII, and considering his farcical Cairo speech you'd think it was dully premeditated.

Killary would just have continued his policies, even if Trump is no perfect, at least let's hope when it comes to foreign policy he doesn't follow the previous administration's way.

You see so many Muslims on social media acting and expressing how trump will be bad for Muslims and will lead to wars and whatnot and some expressing more tenure for Obama as if he was amazing for Muslims.

I mean you just need to see the us election thread.

 

[CricketCartoons]

He has a good image because of rhetoric. Words matter more than actions.

 

[90MPH]

First time I have heard the term war criminal assccoiated with Obama.

It wasn't Obama that started the Arab spring and made Mubarak use millitary force against his own people and then kill 700 of them before being toppled. And of course the subsequent chaos that ensured.
It was not down to the US or Obama but because so many internal factors like rising poverty, fundamentalism and mass Corruption. Not to mention the brutal police state that started the revolution. That's just one county Egypt.

However that said I wasn't a big fan of Obama because for whatever aspirations people had hoped he couldn't live upto them for whatever reason.

And I think the vast majority of Muslims views him like that - not favourably but
More in the neutral.

Certainly he was not even close to being the real war criminal like Bush and his buddies.

 

[Slog]

First time I have heard the term war criminal assccoiated with Obama.

It wasn't Obama that started the Arab spring and made Mubarak use millitary force against his own people and then kill 700 of them before being toppled. And of course the subsequent chaos that ensured.
It was not down to the US or Obama but because so many internal factors like rising poverty, fundamentalism and mass Corruption. Not to mention the brutal police state that started the revolution. That's just one county Egypt.

However that said I wasn't a big fan of Obama because for whatever aspirations people had hoped he couldn't live upto them for whatever reason.

And I think the vast majority of Muslims views him like that - not favourably but
More in the neutral.

Certainly he was not even close to being the real war criminal like Bush and his buddies.

What about the thousands of innocent people killed in his drone program. He had more drone strikes in a few months than bush had in his whole tenure and the technology was there from the second term of bushs. I don't remember the exact number but there was a several hundred percent increase under Obama and the success rate of actually killing a terrorist was not even in double digits percent wise. This after the fact that any male between ages of 16 and 45 was considered a killed terrorist in this statistic

 

[Suleiman]

Shows people judge books by their covers. He has maintained a great public image so all of that is swept under the rug, complete opposite with Trump who thus far has only talked trash but done nothing, yet you have people hiding in their bunkers already if you go by the sheer volume of threads/posts made on him in this forum alone.

 

[90MPH]

What about the thousands of innocent people killed in his drone program. He had more drone strikes in a few months than bush had in his whole tenure and the technology was there from the second term of bushs. I don't remember the exact number but there was a several hundred percent increase under Obama and the success rate of actually killing a terrorist was not even in double digits percent wise. This after the fact that any male between ages of 16 and 45 was considered a killed terrorist in this statistic

If he killed thousands of Pakistanis through the drone programme then I would like to read about it. Of course the drone strikes were very controversial because it's obvious innocent people would die.

But they couldn't operate without intelligence, right ?? It was the Pakistan military and government that gave them that information right ?? It was obvious militants were using safe havens in lawless areas to then launch attacks in Pakistan cities, right ?

Again not saying Obama was an angel but it was the Pak government and military that said carry on but be as precise as you can with the strikes. That's the truth wheather we like it or not.

 

[shaz619]

Because they are misled by his colour, surely this black man will finally back us up! but they were wrong.

 

[Slog]

If he killed thousands of Pakistanis through the drone programme then I would like to read about it. Of course the drone strikes were very controversial because it's obvious innocent people would die.

But they couldn't operate without intelligence, right ?? It was the Pakistan military and government that gave them that information right ?? It was obvious militants were using safe havens in lawless areas to then launch attacks in Pakistan cities, right ?

Again not saying Obama was an ange but it was the Pak government and military that said carry on but be as precise as you can with the strikes. That's the truth wheather we like it or not.

Please check statistics on how many of the people killed were actually terrorists. Even if it had a 1/3rd success rate there may have been a case. It was less than 1 in 10 success rate.

Pak govt is corrupt. I'm talking here about whether he was good or have even slight empathy. He was a cold hearted murderer who okayed every drone strike on the most flimsy evidence. Every drone strike carried out us to be okayed by the President before it can be launched. Literally there were occasions where the basis of a drone strike was that a dozen or so people had congregated in one place.

Also Pak govt wasn't giving evidence for the most part. Mostly they were using their own methods of extracting information most of which relied on satellite footage and determining what is deemed suspiciousas if killing people is like a video game.

And it's not just Pakistan. Yemen and Somalia too. A whole generation of kids in Yemen are growing up malnourished due to his program there and his support of Saudis in their campaign in Yemen

 

[Slog]

He has a good image because of rhetoric. Words matter more than actions.

He can keep his words to himself and join model UN maybe

Failure of a president both at domestic level and international level

Nice guy and I'm sure he's good to be around but yea he should be called out for his wrongs

 

[KingKhanWC]

Because he is a very good actor, possibly on par with Will Smith. He made a few speeches about Islam and Muslims so people who are ignorant of his policies believe he has some sort of close relationship with the Muslim world.

 

[Slog]

Because he is a very good actor, possibly on par with Will Smith. He made a few speeches about Islam and Muslims so people who are ignorant of his policies believe he has some sort of close relationship with the Muslim world.

Glad we can agree on something finally.

Says one thing. Does something totally else.

He is a perfect example of how far the gift of the gab can take you

 

[90MPH]

Please check statistics on how many of the people killed were actually terrorists. Even if it had a 1/3rd success rate there may have been a case. It was less than 1 in 10 success rate.

Pak govt is corrupt. I'm talking here about whether he was good or have even slight empathy. He was a cold hearted murderer who okayed every drone strike on the most flimsy evidence. Every drone strike carried out us to be okayed by the President before it can be launched. Literally there were occasions where the basis of a drone strike was that a dozen or so people had congregated in one place.

Also Pak govt wasn't giving evidence for the most part. Mostly they were using their own methods of extracting information most of which relied on satellite footage and determining what is deemed suspiciousas if killing people is like a video game.

And it's not just Pakistan. Yemen and Somalia too. A whole generation of kids in Yemen are growing up malnourished due to his program there and his support of Saudis in their campaign in Yemen

Again he didn't start the Drone programme (I disagree with it btw) but sure he may have accelerated because he may have thought it was working.

Also I disagree with your firmly that it was he that had any role in the Yemen civil war.

 

[GenericBrand]

Lol meanwhile red-neck Americans think he has been appeasing Muslims and Muslim nations the past 8 years, the irony

 

[Slog]

Again he didn't start the Drone programme (I disagree with it btw) but sure he may have accelerated because he may have thought it was working.

Also I disagree with your firmly that it was he that had any role in the Yemen civil war.

Yes he didnt start it but he surely made it more acceptable. Before it was barely used and only for very extreme circustances.

And he 'may have accelerated' it? There's no 'may have' when facts state that he accelerated it by several 100 percent. Almost 3000 people died according to US figures with less than 10% success rate and we all know the official figures are BS.

Also so nice of him to accelerate them because 'he thought it was working.' So nice. It wasnt a decision of having jam or butter on his toast in the morning that he can go on whims and thoughts. He is a cold hearted murderer who killed 8 times as many people as Bush in drone strikes in Pakistan. And he expanded the drone program to Libya, Yemen and Somalia as well. What's worse is that he gets off scot free and even Muslims dont call him out on it

 

[KingKhanWC]

Please check statistics on how many of the people killed were actually terrorists. Even if it had a 1/3rd success rate there may have been a case. It was less than 1 in 10 success rate.

Pak govt is corrupt. I'm talking here about whether he was good or have even slight empathy. He was a cold hearted murderer who okayed every drone strike on the most flimsy evidence. Every drone strike carried out us to be okayed by the President before it can be launched. Literally there were occasions where the basis of a drone strike was that a dozen or so people had congregated in one place.

Also Pak govt wasn't giving evidence for the most part. Mostly they were using their own methods of extracting information most of which relied on satellite footage and determining what is deemed suspiciousas if killing people is like a video game.

And it's not just Pakistan. Yemen and Somalia too. A whole generation of kids in Yemen are growing up malnourished due to his program there and his support of Saudis in their campaign in Yemen

It's fair to add it's not just the initial drone strike but the second strike which has murdered many people. When the locals come out to help the target of the first strike, another bomb is dropped on them. An estiamted 300 children have been killed in Pakistan.

 

[Slog]

Lol meanwhile red-neck Americans think he has been appeasing Muslims and Muslim nations the past 8 years, the irony

well going by reaction of many Muslims, the Ummah apparently thinks so too. Atleast the ones with internet access and twitter accounts. Forget the innocent children, women and men killed in his daily drone strikes

 

[Slog]

It's fair to add it's not just the initial drone strike but the second strike which has murdered many people. When the locals come out to help the target of the first strike, another bomb is dropped on them. An estiamted 300 children have been killed in Pakistan.

Yep. Many instances in Kurram agency were that a drone strike killed 4-5 people. 15-20 locals came to get dead bodies out of the rubble. And some idiot sitting in the US sees these people congregated and relays the development to Obama who instructs them to strike them aswell.

This is just Pakistan

 

[Asim2Good]

Because media never potray him as one
No one syas Obama did it, its reported as US forces did it
IF media report is as reported abt Asad/qadaffi/saddam, views would b different.
U dont hear one person's name whereever tragedy happens. Our views about USA/Western leaders are mainly because of their press conferences and public appearences.

 

[Slog]

Because media never potray him as one
No one syas Obama did it, its reported as US forces did it
IF media report is as reported abt Asad/qadaffi/saddam, views would b different.
U dont hear one person's name whereever tragedy happens. Our views about USA/Western leaders are mainly because of their press conferences and public appearences.

So why was bush blamed and held responsible personally? Double standards much?

I don't like bush and his policies in Iraq war either. But atleast in his relation to the Muslim world he was man enough to say what he was going to do rather be a snake and act all nice from the outside and stab with a knife from the back.

 

[Markhor]

I'll start off with areas of agreement with the OP.

Drones: Indeed, Obama's been more hawkish than Bush on drones, what's most troubling are the signature strikes. These are based on patterns of behaviour and not precise targeting of any individual, leaving much higher chance of civilian casualties. Egypt and Libya - Mubarak deserved to go. The regime was up to its neck in corruption and cronyism. Libya I agree on and Afghan surge which wasn't mentioned, has been disasterous.

In my opinion and in many instances it is backed by fact, no US president (or any world leader post WW2) has had such a detrimental and negative effect on the Muslim world as Obama.

Its not that I don't accept Obama's failings, but this is an outlandish claim. Its remarkable how 8 years of the Bush Administration has been wiped out from [MENTION=138463]Slog[/MENTION]'s analysis, let alone the previous 70 years. Now I don't mean the following to be a history lesson, the OP probably is already aware, but I want to provide it for everyone for sake of historical context.

The US's destructive policies in the Islamic World begun under the Eisenhower Administration. It was excellently described by Robert F Kennedy Jr in Politico of how the CIA attempted coups in Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Egypt in the 1950s to crush secular Arab nationalist forces, funnelling secret aid to an array of tyrants and in the case of Syria's Husni al-Zaim, a convicted swindler. It was the beginnings of the use of jihadism to counter "godless" Soviet Communism. Eisenhower advised the CIA "We should do everything possible to stress the holy war aspect." This was the original sin of US-Middle East policy.

Eisenhower backed the overthrow of Mossadegh's democratically elected govt in 1953 - an idea rejected by Harry Truman when proposed by Allen Dulles, but approved immediately Eisenhower got into office. This has led to decades of resentment in Iran towards the West, and years of brutality under the Shah. Obama's made a lot of foreign policy mistakes - but his acknowledging of previous CIA skulduggery in Iran, and the nuclear deal deserves him credit, a deal which never would've happened under Bush/Cheney, the latter especially ached to bomb Iran.

Secondly, the Reagan Administration supplied the Saddam regime with chemical weapons to use against Iran. Good ol' Ronny supplied WMDs to one of the biggest mass murderers of the 20th Century, exacerbating the Iran-Iraq War that led to the deaths of a MILLION people. Under Carter/Brzezinski and then Reagan, we saw the transformation of Afghanistan into the unmitigated jihadi hellhole of today causing the rise of the Afghan Taliban and later the TTP who've killed FAR many Pakistanis than Obama drone strikes (which I condemn too).

But let's get onto the War Criminal in Chief George W Bush. He and Halliburton's own Dick Cheney presided over the one of the biggest tragedies to hit the Islamic World - the 2003 Iraq War, based on a pack of brazen lies without a UN mandate nor any clue what to do post-Saddam. It was THAT, and the subsequent de-Baathification that sacked millions of Sunni state employees and soldiers under Bremer, that left, that caused the Sunni insurgency and the rise of ISIS - not Obama's withdrawal in 2011 like Republicans wrongly claim. Many of ISIS's commanders were Saddam-era military and intelligence officials, some of whom were tortured under US-run detention centres in Iraq.

Bush also set up the "Enhanced Interrogation Programme" AKA torture. Waterboarding, sexual abuse, sleep deprivation and physical brutality was sanctioned by Bush/Cheney towards detainees. This saw the deaths of many innocent Muslims arbitrarily detained without trial in CIA black sites and often without ever having access to legal representation. I criticised Obama for not prosecuting Bush-era officials but he did stop the program. Bush also started the Afghanistan War when a peaceful arrangement whereby Taliban could've handed over OBL was possible.

CONCLUSION - George W Bush was the biggest tragedy to befall the Muslim World, along with fellow Christian Fundamentalist sidekick Tony Blair. Then Eisenhower for committing the original sin of US meddling in the Mid East, then Reagan/Obama are tied in third.

 

[Slog]

I'll start off with areas of agreement with the OP.

Drones: Indeed, Obama's been more hawkish than Bush on drones, what's most troubling are the signature strikes. These are based on patterns of behaviour and not precise targeting of any individual, leaving much higher chance of civilian casualties. Egypt and Libya - Mubarak deserved to go. The regime was up to its neck in corruption and cronyism. Libya I agree on and Afghan surge which wasn't mentioned, has been disasterous.


Its not that I don't accept Obama's failings, but this is an outlandish claim. Its remarkable how 8 years of the Bush Administration has been wiped out from [MENTION=138463]Slog[/MENTION]'s analysis, let alone the previous 70 years. Now I don't mean the following to be a history lesson, the OP probably is already aware, but I want to provide it for everyone for sake of historical context.

The US's destructive policies in the Islamic World begun under the Eisenhower Administration. It was excellently described by Robert F Kennedy Jr in Politico of how the CIA attempted coups in Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Egypt in the 1950s to crush secular Arab nationalist forces, funnelling secret aid to an array of tyrants and in the case of Syria's Husni al-Zaim, a convicted swindler. It was the beginnings of the use of jihadism to counter "godless" Soviet Communism. Eisenhower advised the CIA "We should do everything possible to stress the holy war aspect." This was the original sin of US-Middle East policy.

Eisenhower backed the overthrow of Mossadegh's democratically elected govt in 1953 - an idea rejected by Harry Truman when proposed by Allen Dulles, but approved immediately Eisenhower got into office. This has led to decades of resentment in Iran towards the West, and years of brutality under the Shah. Obama's made a lot of foreign policy mistakes - but his acknowledging of previous CIA skulduggery in Iran, and the nuclear deal deserves him credit, a deal which never would've happened under Bush/Cheney, the latter especially ached to bomb Iran.

Secondly, the Reagan Administration supplied the Saddam regime with chemical weapons to use against Iran. Good ol' Ronny supplied WMDs to one of the biggest mass murderers of the 20th Century, exacerbating the Iran-Iraq War that led to the deaths of a MILLION people. Under Carter/Brzezinski and then Reagan, we saw the transformation of Afghanistan into the unmitigated jihadi hellhole of today causing the rise of the Afghan Taliban and later the TTP who've killed FAR many Pakistanis than Obama drone strikes (which I condemn too).

But let's get onto the War Criminal in Chief George W Bush. He and Halliburton's own Dick Cheney presided over the one of the biggest tragedies to hit the Islamic World - the 2003 Iraq War, based on a pack of brazen lies without a UN mandate nor any clue what to do post-Saddam. It was THAT, and the subsequent de-Baathification that sacked millions of Sunni state employees and soldiers under Bremer, that left, that caused the Sunni insurgency and the rise of ISIS - not Obama's withdrawal in 2011 like Republicans wrongly claim. Many of ISIS's commanders were Saddam-era military and intelligence officials, some of whom were tortured under US-run detention centres in Iraq.

Bush also set up the "Enhanced Interrogation Programme" AKA torture. Waterboarding, sexual abuse, sleep deprivation and physical brutality was sanctioned by Bush/Cheney towards detainees. This saw the deaths of many innocent Muslims arbitrarily detained without trial in CIA black sites and often without ever having access to legal representation. I criticised Obama for not prosecuting Bush-era officials but he did stop the program. Bush also started the Afghanistan War when a peaceful arrangement whereby Taliban could've handed over OBL was possible.

CONCLUSION - George W Bush was the biggest tragedy to befall the Muslim World, along with fellow Christian Fundamentalist sidekick Tony Blair. Then Eisenhower for committing the original sin of US meddling in the Mid East, then Reagan/Obama are tied in third.

Please dont deflect the topic by bringing in Bush. Everyone here knows and acknowledges his errors and he gets enough criticism of it. We need to discuss the topic at hand rather than doing the classic 'well he is bad but that other guy was worse' routine.

Let it be a commentary and analysis on Obama and his crusade against the Muslim world. Also yes he has a role to play in the rise of ISIS. He certainly had a poor withdrawal from Iraq. A lot of the modes of the phasing out was already drawn under the Bush administration it is true but in the 2008 campaign, McCain had repeatedly stressed that such a withdrawal which Obama was not only fine with but wanted to speed up further, was foolhardy and would have significant long term consequences and we can all see those today.

While you are free to downplay Obama's role in damage to the Muslim world and tbf have solid reasons to believe it but my reasoning was the overall net effect in terms of death, destruction and instability caused and the geographic expanse of it.g

 

[Adil_94]

because he speaks well in front of the camera. He always talks positively about Islam and Muslims to the Media. Also he is a POC and in the Lefts identity politics hierarchies particularly in America. POC being minorities all have to stick together be it Muslims Hispanics or Blacks. his foreign interventionism isnt really played up by the MSM in the West. Because following Bush and the neo cons you couldnt really do worse in foreign policy particularly in the M.E. He withdrew troops from Iraq which most Americans and the MSM were happy with. The drone strikes in Pakistan arent even publicised that much by the MSM and tbh Pakistani groups in the West who normally are so vocal when it comes to Palestine or Syria arent as vocal when it comes to drone strikes. The Ummah doesnt really care much about drone strikes either. In Syria most Muslims support Assad from being removed from power because he is a dictator from a minority sect who is seen to be oppressing Sunnis so most Muslims support the West in its trying to remove Assad unless they are Pan-Arabist or Ba'athist or secularist. In terms of Egypt Obama couldnt have done much there the Mubarak regime was morally bankrupt and its time was up
Libya was a clear disaster but because U.S Troops havent gone in directly it has disappeared from the news headlines despite being overrun by various Islamist militias and tribal warlords. Syria is also a mess but the perception is that is because of Bushs legacy in Iraq not purely because of Obama.

 

[Yossarian]

You see so many Muslims on social media acting and expressing how trump will be bad for Muslims and will lead to wars and whatnot ..........

Saying Trump will be bad does not automatically equate to saying Obama is/was good. It's not a case of mutual exclusivity.

 

[Slog]

Saying Trump will be bad does not automatically equate to saying Obama is/was good. It's not a case of mutual exclusivity.

No they actively praise him as if he was a great friend of the Muslims. And everything he did they brush it off

And personally I'd much rather have a guy who says he'll be tough with me than have a person who is nice from the outside but stabs you in the back

 

[Markhor]

Please dont deflect the topic by bringing in Bush. Everyone here knows and acknowledges his errors and he gets enough criticism of it. We need to discuss the topic at hand rather than doing the classic 'well he is bad but that other guy was worse' routine.

Let it be a commentary and analysis on Obama and his crusade against the Muslim world. Also yes he has a role to play in the rise of ISIS. He certainly had a poor withdrawal from Iraq. A lot of the modes of the phasing out was already drawn under the Bush administration it is true but in the 2008 campaign, McCain had repeatedly stressed that such a withdrawal which Obama was not only fine with but wanted to speed up further, was foolhardy and would have significant long term consequences and we can all see those today.

While you are free to downplay Obama's role in damage to the Muslim world and tbf have solid reasons to believe it but my reasoning was the overall net effect in terms of death, destruction and instability caused and the geographic expanse of it.g

By claiming Obama was the worst foreign policy President for Muslims you obviously will open up a debate whereby we must compare his record to other Presidents so we can assess the validity of your claim. History doesn't exist in a vacuum of isolated events under one leader.

Bush was worse on all the criteria you mention. The consequences of the 2003 Iraq War are still being felt as Bush destroyed a regional order, opened a power vacuum, and deepened sectarian divides across the Mid East plus widening the Iran-Saudi rift thus killing a million people. Without the 2003 invasion and its botched aftermath, we wouldn't have the Sunni insurgency that morphed into ISIS. Even Tony Blair admitted this on CNN. You cannot objectively analyse the Obama years without this historical context.

On the 2011 withdrawal - Obama did want a residual force (the estimates vary). The problem was the Iraqi Parliament wanted the Americans gone. They would also never agree to giving US troops legal immunity. So you can't just stay there as a colonial power !

But even if there was a residual force, ISIS would've still emerged because the problems in Iraq are fundamentally a political one.

 

[Adil_94]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamas-deportation-policy-numbers/story?id=41715661 its all about public perception. Trump wants to deport illegals and he shouts about it. Obama just does it via the back door.

 

[Markhor]

So why was bush blamed and held responsible personally? Double standards much?

I don't like bush and his policies in Iraq war either. But atleast in his relation to the Muslim world he was man enough to say what he was going to do rather be a snake and act all nice from the outside and stab with a knife from the back.

Look I respect your opinion and you're entitled to it but we clearly disagree. Bush did the opposite of being a man with clear intentions.

A snake says over and again to the world that Saddam was linked to 9/11 knowing the two were totally unrelated.

A snake says Saddam had WMDs whilst knowing Cheney et al. had pressured the CIA to cook up the intelligence.

A man wouldn't have hid behind some BS WMDs, but would've said straight up he wanted regime change. And that he's invading Iraq to grab the oil and enrich his buddies in Halliburton.

That's not to excuse Obama's failings but Bush was anything but a man.

 

[Yossarian]

No they actively praise him as if he was a great friend of the Muslims. And everything he did they brush it off

And personally I'd much rather have a guy who says he'll be tough with me than have a person who is nice from the outside but stabs you in the back

There you go again. Unable to understand the gist of the post. Again.

Whilst nearly everyone I know (Muslim and non-Muslim) has a very negative view of Trump, and the views of non-Muslims vary as regards Obama, I've not come across any Muslims who have a positive view of Obama.

So I don't understand where you're getting all this information from that claims to show Muslims have a positive view of Obama. Sure it's not just in your mind?

 

[Adil_94]

around the world most Muslims ive spoken to dislike Obama. American Muslims ive spoken to like him because domestically he hasnt been bigoted towards Muslims.

 

[Yossarian]

around the world most Muslims ive spoken to dislike Obama. American Muslims ive spoken to like him because domestically he hasnt been bigoted towards Muslims.

It's ok. The OP has most likely come across the odd Muslim here or there who says they think Obama's OK (probably in comparison to Trump), and he's extrapolated that to assume all Muslims love Obama.

 

[GoloriousPotato]

Many in Pakistan absolutely love him because he has "Hussain"in his name. I remember when he got elected people were dancing around because everyone thought he's going to be the savior for us. Lulz

 

[Yossarian]

Many in Pakistan absolutely love him because he has "Hussain"in his name. I remember when he got elected people were dancing around because everyone thought he's going to be the savior for us. Lulz

Most of the world had high hopes in him. I know that the vast majority of the British public did. But sadly he turned out as being no different than the others.

 

[Mamoon]

Obama's incredible charisma and prowess as public speaker has won the hearts of many people in spite of his criminal actions.

 

[endymion248]

He can keep his words to himself and join model UN maybe

Failure of a president both at domestic level and international level

Nice guy and I'm sure he's good to be around but yea he should be called out for his wrongs

Domestic level?

 

[HussainRx8]

By this logic, Muslims can't have a positive view of any world leader. Saudi King is a bigger criminal than Obama.

Obama did plenty good too. He extended healthcare to millions of poor and uninsured people. His economic policies were progressive and pro-poor.

 

[MrBrownstone]

It doesn't matter who's in charge, there is never really a drastic change between different presidents and parties. They are probably not even running the full show, there are a lot of rich organisations behind these guys who call the shots -banks, oil companies, diamond companies, arms companies. Why do you think Kennedy got assassinated? He wanted to put an end to these people behind the scene. I wonder if Trump really is going to do half the things he said he was going to, if so then he too could be a target for assassination.

 

[LongHorn]

Its amusing to see us talk of Muslims as one monolithic bloc, ask 10 Muslims who have negative opinions on Obama as to what he could have done better, and here are the answers you will get, and the responses will be 180 degrees opposite


Saudi will say Obama is bad because he did not bomb Iran

Iranian will say Obama is bad because he supported rebels in Syria

Syrian rebels will say Obama is bad because he did not bomb the Syrian army

Mubarak supporter will say Obama is bad because he did not support Mubarak

Morsi supporter will say Obama is bad because he did not stop Sisi


At end of day, a "Muslim" wants the US to do his bidding he wants the US to bomb his enemies, and to support his favorite dictator, and if the US president does not, then be becomes the bad guy.

 

[LongHorn]

His main crime were the drones in Pakistan .....

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Obama's incredible charisma and prowess as public speaker has won the hearts of many people in spite of his criminal actions.

This in a nutshell. He simply is more refined in his speech than Trump or even bush for that matter.

 

[Saeed]

He is a nice a guy. With that much power he only managed to kill few 1000 innocent people. Compare him to what Middle Eastern dictators, Pakistani military or Putin does. They kill and bomb hospitals with no accountability. Also he is not responsible for Middle Eastern mess. Paul Bremer and sectarian government is responsible for the rise of ISIS. As for others, Middle Eastern dictators got paranoid after Tunisians overthrew Ben Ali and responded brutally to protests.

 

[Slog]

Domestic level?

anemic growth, worse recovery since the great depression, lowest home ownership since 50s, arguably worst race relations since 60s, lowest labor participation rate in decades etc etc

 

[JaDed]

Unlike Justin Trudeaux who has many Sikhs in his cabinet and them having a bias for him is understood,Obama absolute has done zilch except take a pic with a random racism victim clockmaker.

Maybe his middle name could be one of the reasons.The guy's PR is remarkable darling of the Liberals.

 

[90MPH]

I've seen enough politics to know that Obama was probably the most liberal American president in the last 3 decades.

Certainly Hillary Clinton would have been more hawkish as her views are well known.

Despite the Jewish lobby and pro Israel press Obama did try to pressure on Israel like no president had not done since George Bush 1 back in 1991. But unfortunately it came to nothing because 1 man can not do anything if the system dictates otherwise.

I think this is something we need to bear in mind that Obama or Trump may move the ship in a certain direction but American foreign policy will be dictated by their own interests.

Countries like Yemen and Egypt have been a mess because of their own doing.

But sure the West especially America has played a significant and devastating role in Iraq and Libya and they have to take responsibilities for those disasters.

 

[Markhor]

Unlike Justin Trudeaux who has many Sikhs in his cabinet and them having a bias for him is understood,Obama absolute has done zilch except take a pic with a random racism victim clockmaker.

Maybe his middle name could be one of the reasons.The guy's PR is remarkable darling of the Liberals.

Its the "Burden of the First" [MENTION=137142]JaDed[/MENTION]. Ironically being the first black President is just as much a curse than it is a blessing.

If Obama implements direct measures specifically for the African American community - he'll be accused by Fox and the RW of "hooking up the brothers" and being biased towards his own community. If he doesn't, then the black community will call him an Uncle Tom/sellout etc.

Professor Michael Eric Dyson is worth watching on YouTube on this issue as he explains it very well. Obama's philosophy is "a rising tide lifts all boats", i.e. if he does the economic stimulus and healthcare reform - he'll be benefiting African Americans anyway. Moreover, Obama believes he's not the "President of Black America" but a black American who just happens to be President.

Personally, I think he didn't go far enough in addressing the grievances of black Americans, but I understand the political dilemma.

 

[90MPH]

Its the "Burden of the First" [MENTION=137142]JaDed[/MENTION]. Ironically being the first black President is just as much a curse than it is a blessing.

If Obama implements direct measures specifically for the African American community - he'll be accused by Fox and the RW of "hooking up the brothers" and being biased towards his own community. If he doesn't, then the black community will call him an Uncle Tom/sellout etc.

Professor Michael Eric Dyson is worth watching on YouTube on this issue as he explains it very well. Obama's philosophy is "a rising tide lifts all boats", i.e. if he does the economic stimulus and healthcare reform - he'll be benefiting African Americans anyway. Moreover, Obama believes he's not the "President of Black America" but a black American who just happens to be President.

Personally, I think he didn't go far enough in addressing the grievances of black Americans, but I understand the political dilemma.

He tried to please everyone, this what was his biggest problem.

From the Iran Nuclear deal to Obama care he was always ridiculed by his opponents so he could never have won, especially the republicans and the more racist tea party movement.

I am sure he wanted much things to be done, but he always had his hands tied.

 

[endymion248]

anemic growth, worse recovery since the great depression, lowest home ownership since 50s, arguably worst race relations since 60s, lowest labor participation rate in decades etc etc

Are we living in a different world? The US has had solid growth for the past 8 years. I wouldn't say it's thanks to Obama but he didn't do any harm either.

 

[Slog]

Are we living in a different world? The US has had solid growth for the past 8 years. I wouldn't say it's thanks to Obama but he didn't do any harm either.

well thats not factual by any measure

Yes it had growth

 

[endymion248]

well thats not factual by any measure

Yes it had growth

Compare it to other developed countries.

 

[JaDed]

Its the "Burden of the First" [MENTION=137142]JaDed[/MENTION]. Ironically being the first black President is just as much a curse than it is a blessing.

If Obama implements direct measures specifically for the African American community - he'll be accused by Fox and the RW of "hooking up the brothers" and being biased towards his own community. If he doesn't, then the black community will call him an Uncle Tom/sellout etc.

Professor Michael Eric Dyson is worth watching on YouTube on this issue as he explains it very well. Obama's philosophy is "a rising tide lifts all boats", i.e. if he does the economic stimulus and healthcare reform - he'll be benefiting African Americans anyway. Moreover, Obama believes he's not the "President of Black America" but a black American who just happens to be President.

Personally, I think he didn't go far enough in addressing the grievances of black Americans, but I understand the political dilemma.

In the second term it shouldn't had mattered to him but he is trying to built his legacy so he can bring out a book later or stay relevant.

Obama irrespective of what he did would always be hated by Republicans and racist folks sad he couldn't figure that out should had done more on everything imo because he could had paved a way for Liberal Presidents in the future.

 

[saeedhk]

Baffles me.

Guy is a war criminal who killed thousands upon thousands of innocent men, women and children in Muslim countries such as Pakistan or Yemen with total disregard for human life or even bothering to check whether the targets were indeed terrorists.

In his time there were several high profile blunders in the Middle East such as the toppling of Mubarak and Gaddafi which his administration actively encouraged. These countries are now a terrible mess. And let's not even talk about his administrations role in the mess that is Syria

In my opinion and in many instances it is backed by fact, no US president (or any world leader post WW2) has had such a detrimental and negative effect on the Muslim world as Obama.

He is a war criminal who had left the middle easy and the Muslim world in a mess leading to the rise of ISIS. His policies have destabilised many Muslim countries and his total and utter lack of humanness and empathy when killing innocent children and women in drone strikes carried out with little basis or flimsy information have led to murder of thousands upon thousands of Muslims.

The list goes on.

Obama is a war criminal and it boggles me how so many Muslims see him as a symbol of leader who has empathy towards Muslims.

I was about to create a thread on this topic. Huge numbers of Muslims and Pakistanis singing praises of Mr. Obama. He is seen as a protector of Muslims and people of color. I believe it is because Mr. Obama always sweet talks plus he is a great orator with a charming personality; so all his criminal actions go unnoticed.

He doesn't make outrageous comments like Trump, instead, he just goes for it and many people do not notice. Trump with all his faults, may prove to be a better president for Muslims. Trump has said the U.S is responsible for the mess in ME. Seems to be an anti-war guy.

 

[Thomaskutty]

well going by reaction of many Muslims, the Ummah apparently thinks so too. Atleast the ones with internet access and twitter accounts. Forget the innocent children, women and men killed in his daily drone strikes

How do you know drone strikes in Pak have killed as many civilians as is claimed ? Majority of the people killed are ttp militants , more than 90-95 % according to some estimates otherwise Obama wouldn't continue the program.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Who ? Towering majority of Muslims I interact with see Obomber as what he is : a war criminal, even though more cosmetic and deceptive than others.

I also agree with your assessment that he has been the single most toxic political figure to the Islamic world post-WWII, and considering his farcical Cairo speech you'd think it was dully premeditated.

Killary would just have continued his policies, even if Trump is no perfect, at least let's hope when it comes to foreign policy he doesn't follow the previous administration's way.

He probably will though.

 

[Slog]

How do you know drone strikes in Pak have killed as many civilians as is claimed ? Majority of the people killed are ttp militants , more than 90-95 % according to some estimates otherwise Obama wouldn't continue the program.

Lmao where are you getting these figures from?


Check any independent source.

I'll share a few when I'm on laptop

 

[Thomaskutty]

Lmao where are you getting these figures from?


Check any independent source.

I'll share a few when I'm on laptop

This is the reality of drone strikes in Pakistan. A majority of the people surveyed here says it gets the job done , is more effective and less disruptive than Pak army ground operations ..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ne-blow-back-in-pakistan-is-a-myth-heres-why/

 

[Jan Sher]

I don't know him personally, so can't tell about his character, but by observing his speeches and media conferences, he is quite intelligent.

 

[Slog]

This is the reality of drone strikes in Pakistan. A majority of the people surveyed here says it gets the job done , is more effective and less disruptive than Pak army ground operations ..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ne-blow-back-in-pakistan-is-a-myth-heres-why/

I'll share some actual academic work rather than this sample of interviews with no structure and no representative sampling tomorrow

 

[chacha kashmiri]

Slog this must be your fourth post /thread on this
I understand you're stressed about it and want to change your perceived opinion on Obamas popularity

As someone that's not American I'm interested in who you want muslims to vouch for in American politics and how your employees colleagues and neighbours view the current situation in America

 

[moghul]

Baffles me.

Guy is a war criminal who killed thousands upon thousands of innocent men, women and children in Muslim countries such as Pakistan or Yemen with total disregard for human life or even bothering to check whether the targets were indeed terrorists.

In his time there were several high profile blunders in the Middle East such as the toppling of Mubarak and Gaddafi which his administration actively encouraged. These countries are now a terrible mess. And let's not even talk about his administrations role in the mess that is Syria

In my opinion and in many instances it is backed by fact, no US president (or any world leader post WW2) has had such a detrimental and negative effect on the Muslim world as Obama.

He is a war criminal who had left the middle easy and the Muslim world in a mess leading to the rise of ISIS. His policies have destabilised many Muslim countries and his total and utter lack of humanness and empathy when killing innocent children and women in drone strikes carried out with little basis or flimsy information have led to murder of thousands upon thousands of Muslims.

The list goes on.

Obama is a war criminal and it boggles me how so many Muslims see him as a symbol of leader who has empathy towards Muslims.

Totally agree with you, Obama has been the most anti-muslim, anti-Pakistan and war criminal president we ever had. Just because he had muslim middle name , some muslim had soft corner in their heart for him, which he never deserved it. He was also a bad president over all, no wonder people were so fed up of him , they even elected this crazy guy now.

 

[Slog]

Bump. Seems to be in the news agai.

 

[Gabbar Singh]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Lots of very cosy interviews with Barack Obama popping up to promote his book. Not seeing much scrutiny of his shocking record on drone strikes, failure to close Guantanamo Bay, dreadful attacks on press freedom, or the fact he deported 3 million immigrants.. an all-time record. <a href="https://t.co/7yJbKyQiCX">pic.twitter.com/7yJbKyQiCX</a></p>— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) <a href="https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/1330130720166203396?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 21, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[JaDed]

Because he is a great orator, probably the best of 21st century!

 

[Gabbar Singh]

Because he is a great orator, probably the best of 21st century!

Yep.

Some of his early stuff was phenomenal- almost hypnotic. You don’t really get the same vibes off him now though.

 

[Madplayer]

Because he is a great orator, probably the best of 21st century!

Thats about it. He speaks well and says the right things no matter what he does away from the spotlight.

 

[BreadPakoda]

Not only is he a great orator, he also says the most virtuous things at opportune times.

He once said something like “I am Barack, also known as Michelle's husband” which was followed by a rousing applause by a large gathering of feminists. Come on. Isn’t this Blockbuster material?

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

People in America are obsessed with identity politics. Particularly those who are liberals, leftists, or of ethnic minority backgrounds. They misconstrue people from minority classes or marginalized groups rising to the top as a sign of progress. This is evident with the manner in which liberals in the US fawn over Kamala Harris.

Unfortunately the reality is that once you are a part of the system, your individual personality takes a backseat to the interests of the system. You can have the best intentions, and Obama for his part even was a highly educated, erudite, and talented individual, which is what propelled him to the top. But once he got there he learned what the office of POTUS actually connotes. Ended up doing practically nothing in areas of domestic reform since his hands were tied by Republicans. And in foreign policy, he had a long line of failures from Russian annexation of Crimea to continued losses in Afghanistan. The one good thing he did: the Iran Nuclear Deal was almost immediately repealed by the Trump administration. And today his biggest legacy is killing innocents through drone strikes.

 

[JaDed]

Yep.

Some of his early stuff was phenomenal- almost hypnotic. You don’t really get the same vibes off him now though.

I don't agree with left democrats but man when I see Obama speak its something else, he is Liberal(so called) Royalty, conservatives(globally) haven't had one good orator since maybe Thatcher, Raegan?

Thats about it. He speaks well and says the right things no matter what he does away from the spotlight.

That's how Nation leaders should be, Democrats are practical Liberals atleast the ones of Deep establishment and not the leftists.

During Obama's time he pulled America away from fall (QE) when Europe was advancing in tech, now literally everything is American designed, software-hardware.

 

[Markhor]

People in America are obsessed with identity politics. Particularly those who are liberals, leftists, or of ethnic minority backgrounds. They misconstrue people from minority classes or marginalized groups rising to the top as a sign of progress. This is evident with the manner in which liberals in the US fawn over Kamala Harris.

While I accept many centre and centre left politicians engage in identity politics (especially as a cover when lacking substantive policy programmes of their own) - to suggest white, conservative America do not indulge in identity politics kinda reveals your partiality.

Firstly, America as a country was founded on the basis of white, racial superiority and the subjugation of the indigenous population and of course, African Americans. Many of the founders were slaveowners themselves, so race has always been a faultline in American society through to the Civil War, Reconstruction and Jim Crow era.

The Southern states and white identity was inextricably linked. After the Civil Rights legislation in the 60s under a Democratic President - Southern Democrats left the party en masse and Republicans since have been the home of grievanced whites. The Confederate flag STILL flies in many parts of the South TODAY, despite what it symbolises.

The rise of Trump as a political player started with the Birther Movement which was nothing more than a racist front to delegitimise the first Black President. So to think Black Lives Matter or modern day liberals have introduced identity politics is absurd and ahistorical.

Now do I agree with every aspect of BLM ? No. Terms like "white privilege" or calls to "defund police" are ridiculous as A) many working class whites struggling economically do not feel privileged and B) most blacks support more police funding.

But it helps to put things in a historical perspective.

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

While I accept many centre and centre left politicians engage in identity politics (especially as a cover when lacking substantive policy programmes of their own) - to suggest white, conservative America do not indulge in identity politics kinda reveals your partiality.

Firstly, America as a country was founded on the basis of white, racial superiority and the subjugation of the indigenous population and of course, African Americans. Many of the founders were slaveowners themselves, so race has always been a faultline in American society through to the Civil War, Reconstruction and Jim Crow era.

The Southern states and white identity was inextricably linked. After the Civil Rights legislation in the 60s under a Democratic President - Southern Democrats left the party en masse and Republicans since have been the home of grievanced whites. The Confederate flag STILL flies in many parts of the South TODAY, despite what it symbolises.

The rise of Trump as a political player started with the Birther Movement which was nothing more than a racist front to delegitimise the first Black President. So to think Black Lives Matter or modern day liberals have introduced identity politics is absurd and ahistorical.

Now do I agree with every aspect of BLM ? No. Terms like "white privilege" or calls to "defund police" are ridiculous as A) many working class whites struggling economically do not feel privileged and B) most blacks support more police funding.

But it helps to put things in a historical perspective.

Thank you for the rejoinder on US History, but I am perfectly well aware of these historical facts. As well as the current situation.

And it was never my insinuation that whites don't indulge in identity politics. Rather I would say that as opposed to liberals and leftists their politics is openly racist and reinforces all the ideas of America's problematic, racist past.

However, a key difference between these racist whites and the liberals, is that unlike the liberals they don't pretend to be something they are not. This goes back to the 2016 election between Trump and Clinton. I don't need to repeat anything about Trump as everything was well-known back then as it now, and was well-covered in the media. But the way in which liberals and centrists were getting behind Hillary absolutely sickened me. I mean this was a woman that was known as being a warmonger, an establishment hawk. Someone who had a big hand in destroying Libya and probably would have destroyed a few more countries if she had the chance. She was someone who was backed by some of the most unscrupulous individuals and interest groups in US politics, and all people could think about was she is going to be "the first female US President." I have to admit a part of me smiled when she actually lost.

Ultimately, the point that I would like to stress would be that the candidates that come to power from both parties are not a whole lot different, regardless of how different their supporters may be. Trump is an anomaly. But if you look at the history of US Presidents you can see that Presidents from both parties have; protected corporate power in America, declared wars on other countries, committed war crimes, done nothing to provide universal health care to citizens. If you go back further you can see that almost all US Presidents were racists who didn't do anything about slavery and civil rights until they absolutely had to. Even Lincoln who is regarded as an American hero and had the biggest hand in abolishing slavery was a racist who admitted during a debate once that he did not believe that blacks and whites were equal.

Ultimately, American politics is run by elites, with the biggest goal being protection of the interests of the elites. It always has been. Dating all the way back to 1787 when the US Constitution was framed by 55 educated, rich, white men, who also happened to be slave owners.


Also, I have nothing against the BLM movement and fully support it.

 

[Gabbar Singh]

Still remember his incredible Cairo speech - delivered beautifully and he promised so much. Yet all his good intentions meant nothing in the end as he delivered on very little when it came to the Middle East.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/B_889oBKkNU" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Markhor]

And it was never my insinuation that whites don't indulge in identity politics. Rather I would say that as opposed to liberals and leftists their politics is openly racist and reinforces all the ideas of America's problematic, racist past.

Which is also called...identity politics.

All I'm saying is there's two sides to every story. Liberals did not invent identity politics, if anything what you see today is a counter-reaction to 200 years of white identity politics.

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

Which is also called...identity politics.

All I'm saying is there's two sides to every story. Liberals did not invent identity politics, if anything what you see today is a counter-reaction to 200 years of white identity politics.

I don't understand why you telling me what I already wrote. I never said they don't indulge in identity politics.

My point was simply that liberals try to showcase their identity politics as being morally superior. While they may be morally superior in theory as opposed to the politics of the right (obviously) which promote racism and racial superiority, they don't mean a thing because the politicians they support and elect have other narrow interests at heart. Rather than the idealistic ideas promoted by liberals.

So really all they are essentially promoting is a façade, that deludes them into thinking they are doing something for the greater good.

Bernie Sanders is really the only outlier in the politics of the American left. Someone genuinely committed to doing good. And we all saw what happened to him. As soon as he started leading, a malicious campaign was unleashed against him in the mainstream media in an attempt to shift public opinion. Democratic party members started attacking him, in a bid to undermine his credibility. People like Hilary Clinton no less, who have the dubious distinction of being beaten black and blue on the electoral map by Donald Trump.

Most liberal politicians are centrists not interested in rocking the boat and not all that different from Republicans on many key issues.

 

[Markhor]

I don't understand why you telling me what I already wrote. I never said they don't indulge in identity politics.

My point was simply that liberals try to showcase their identity politics as being morally superior. While they may be morally superior in theory as opposed to the politics of the right (obviously) which promote racism and racial superiority, they don't mean a thing because the politicians they support and elect have other narrow interests at heart. Rather than the idealistic ideas promoted by liberals.

So really all they are essentially promoting is a façade, that deludes them into thinking they are doing something for the greater good.

Bernie Sanders is really the only outlier in the politics of the American left. Someone genuinely committed to doing good. And we all saw what happened to him. As soon as he started leading, a malicious campaign was unleashed against him in the mainstream media in an attempt to shift public opinion. Democratic party members started attacking him, in a bid to undermine his credibility. People like Hilary Clinton no less, who have the dubious distinction of being beaten black and blue on the electoral map by Donald Trump.

Most liberal politicians are centrists not interested in rocking the boat and not all that different from Republicans on many key issues.

Last post on this. Yaar, Bernie Sanders couldn't even convince a majority of black voters in the Democratic Party primary let alone the country. Infact in 2020, youth turnout (his base) fell despite having these idealistic visions. What good are idealistic visions when you're not in power to implement it ?

Look I share your support about Bernie's policies but he, like Corbyn in Britain who suffered a devastating election wipeout in 2019, while having good intentions are simply anathema to moderate, swing voters whose votes you need to win elections like it or not. Biden for all his flaws won the most votes in US history (80M) and beat Trump by the same Electoral College margin he beat Clinton in 2016 (306-232).

Bernie couldn't even pass universal healthcare in his own state of Vermont so how would he do so nationally ? Just the term "democratic socialist" triggers a lot of older Americans. People talk about The Squad (AOC, Tlaib, Omar etc) and how Democrats need real leftists like them. But the inconvenient truth is they all won their seats in safe blue districts.

Look we'll agree to disagree but here's my view. Some good change through compromise is better than insisting on ideological purity and getting no change.

One more person getting healthcare through Obamacare is better than nothing. Iran nuclear deal, while not perfect, was a step forward. The Paris Climate Accords didn't go far enough, but is better than nothing. Did the 1964 Civil Rights Act end systemic racism ? No but millions of black Americans reaped the benefits. When Social Security was launched under Franklin Roosevelt, it was a limited scheme that excluded many. But it was a good start his successors built on.

Incremental steps, however frustrating, is how progress was made throughout history.

 

[JaDed]

Last post on this. Yaar, Bernie Sanders couldn't even convince a majority of black voters in the Democratic Party primary let alone the country. Infact in 2020, youth turnout (his base) fell despite having these idealistic visions. What good are idealistic visions when you're not in power to implement it ?

Look I share your support about Bernie's policies but he, like Corbyn in Britain who suffered a devastating election wipeout in 2019, while having good intentions are simply anathema to moderate, swing voters whose votes you need to win elections like it or not. Biden for all his flaws won the most votes in US history (80M) and beat Trump by the same Electoral College margin he beat Clinton in 2016 (306-232).

Bernie couldn't even pass universal healthcare in his own state of Vermont so how would he do so nationally ? Just the term "democratic socialist" triggers a lot of older Americans. People talk about The Squad (AOC, Tlaib, Omar etc) and how Democrats need real leftists like them. But the inconvenient truth is they all won their seats in safe blue districts.

Look we'll agree to disagree but here's my view. Some good change through compromise is better than insisting on ideological purity and getting no change.

One more person getting healthcare through Obamacare is better than nothing. Iran nuclear deal, while not perfect, was a step forward. The Paris Climate Accords didn't go far enough, but is better than nothing. Did the 1964 Civil Rights Act end systemic racism ? No but millions of black Americans reaped the benefits. When Social Security was launched under Franklin Roosevelt, it was a limited scheme that excluded many. But it was a good start his successors built on.

Incremental steps, however frustrating, is how progress was made throughout history.

Potw bro, brilliant post, hopefully Labour Party realizes this.

IMO the only countries where they can escape for now with socialist Liberalism are Canada and Scandinavian ones which have high Resources per capita.

 

[Giannis]

I don't think most of us do.

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

Last post on this. Yaar, Bernie Sanders couldn't even convince a majority of black voters in the Democratic Party primary let alone the country. Infact in 2020, youth turnout (his base) fell despite having these idealistic visions. What good are idealistic visions when you're not in power to implement it ?

Look I share your support about Bernie's policies but he, like Corbyn in Britain who suffered a devastating election wipeout in 2019, while having good intentions are simply anathema to moderate, swing voters whose votes you need to win elections like it or not. Biden for all his flaws won the most votes in US history (80M) and beat Trump by the same Electoral College margin he beat Clinton in 2016 (306-232).

Bernie couldn't even pass universal healthcare in his own state of Vermont so how would he do so nationally ? Just the term "democratic socialist" triggers a lot of older Americans. People talk about The Squad (AOC, Tlaib, Omar etc) and how Democrats need real leftists like them. But the inconvenient truth is they all won their seats in safe blue districts.

Look we'll agree to disagree but here's my view. Some good change through compromise is better than insisting on ideological purity and getting no change.

One more person getting healthcare through Obamacare is better than nothing. Iran nuclear deal, while not perfect, was a step forward. The Paris Climate Accords didn't go far enough, but is better than nothing. Did the 1964 Civil Rights Act end systemic racism ? No but millions of black Americans reaped the benefits. When Social Security was launched under Franklin Roosevelt, it was a limited scheme that excluded many. But it was a good start his successors built on.

Incremental steps, however frustrating, is how progress was made throughout history.

You're missing my point, which is fundamentally a pessimistic one. You are mentioning a very small number of things out of what is a 244 year history. Sure, a great many Americans enjoy good lives but looking at America today, is it really a country that stands as a model for other countries to emulate?

Capitalism reigns supreme in America; it has penetrated into every aspect of American life. Income inequality in America has skyrocketed since the 1980s. Race tensions are always at the surface, and racism today is just as institutionalized as it was decades ago. You talk about benefits that blacks reaped yet despite being 13% of the population they make up 40% of the prison population. Some of this has do with socio-economic reasons; a life of poverty that leads them to a life of crime, but in other cases its institutionalized racism in the justice system that oftentimes condemns them to longer jail-terms than they actually deserve. And its not even limited to blacks, but to any and every other American who isn't white. Despite being the most powerful country in the world and having the largest economy in the world, US citizens don't even have universal health-care, which goes to show how much power the politicians actually wield as opposed to corporations and special interest groups. The media which is run by such special interests can manipulate public opinion so easily, and with such subtlety that the people who are being manipulated don't even know it.

If you look at America's role in the world in the last 70 odd years, it has been one marked by atrocities, war crimes, invasions of other countries, covert regime changes and exploitation. From bullying the countries in their "backyard" to fighting endless wars on far away continents, American empire has done little more than causing death and destruction on different parts of this planet. And yet Americans leaders still have the gall to talk about spreading democracy and liberals values all over the planet, when they have played a leading role in subverting both.

So excuse me, if I am not exactly as impressed as you are at where America is today. America by birth was a country that had near perfect conditions. It was a country, rich with natural resources, with practically perfect geography. The people who actually lived there were practically wiped out by the white Europeans, the blacks could be used as slaves, and once they stole the land they needed to steal from Mexico, they had ample land aswell. On top of that, the hostile Europeans were far away once they had been evicted from their North American colonies.

After the Second World War, the US had even more incredible conditions; conditions that are perhaps unrivaled in human history. They literally had half of the world's wealth. And what did they want to do? Dominate. I could go on with the post Cold War world but this is getting too long.

Ultimately, if you think America today is any kind of example for the world to emulate, you need to re-assess what you consider to be an example to emulate. And the center of this is the system that reinforces the kind of centrist politics of incremental change that you are talking about. Politics that ensure that the interests of the rich and powerful are protected at all costs, while giving a carrot to the common people every now and again. The question is not whether the system can be changed or not. It can't be. But we need to stop pretending like the US is any kind of example to be emulated.

 

[moghul]

Probably only some "jahil" Muslims have some positive view about Obama ,who probably was the worst president US had in recent times. He proved to be the most damaging for Muslims and Muslim countries including Pakistan. Now he is giving excuses for ordering non-stop drone attacks and killing hundreds of innocent civilians in Pakistan and a handful of terrorists , because he did not want to "look" like a weak president.

Even for middle class Americans, he proved disastrous, and Trump cashed that anger gains him.

 

[Markhor]

You're missing my point, which is fundamentally a pessimistic one. You are mentioning a very small number of things out of what is a 244 year history. Sure, a great many Americans enjoy good lives but looking at America today, is it really a country that stands as a model for other countries to emulate?

Capitalism reigns supreme in America; it has penetrated into every aspect of American life. Income inequality in America has skyrocketed since the 1980s. Race tensions are always at the surface, and racism today is just as institutionalized as it was decades ago. You talk about benefits that blacks reaped yet despite being 13% of the population they make up 40% of the prison population. Some of this has do with socio-economic reasons; a life of poverty that leads them to a life of crime, but in other cases its institutionalized racism in the justice system that oftentimes condemns them to longer jail-terms than they actually deserve. And its not even limited to blacks, but to any and every other American who isn't white. Despite being the most powerful country in the world and having the largest economy in the world, US citizens don't even have universal health-care, which goes to show how much power the politicians actually wield as opposed to corporations and special interest groups. The media which is run by such special interests can manipulate public opinion so easily, and with such subtlety that the people who are being manipulated don't even know it.

If you look at America's role in the world in the last 70 odd years, it has been one marked by atrocities, war crimes, invasions of other countries, covert regime changes and exploitation. From bullying the countries in their "backyard" to fighting endless wars on far away continents, American empire has done little more than causing death and destruction on different parts of this planet. And yet Americans leaders still have the gall to talk about spreading democracy and liberals values all over the planet, when they have played a leading role in subverting both.

So excuse me, if I am not exactly as impressed as you are at where America is today. America by birth was a country that had near perfect conditions. It was a country, rich with natural resources, with practically perfect geography. The people who actually lived there were practically wiped out by the white Europeans, the blacks could be used as slaves, and once they stole the land they needed to steal from Mexico, they had ample land aswell. On top of that, the hostile Europeans were far away once they had been evicted from their North American colonies.

After the Second World War, the US had even more incredible conditions; conditions that are perhaps unrivaled in human history. They literally had half of the world's wealth. And what did they want to do? Dominate. I could go on with the post Cold War world but this is getting too long.

Ultimately, if you think America today is any kind of example for the world to emulate, you need to re-assess what you consider to be an example to emulate. And the center of this is the system that reinforces the kind of centrist politics of incremental change that you are talking about. Politics that ensure that the interests of the rich and powerful are protected at all costs, while giving a carrot to the common people every now and again. The question is not whether the system can be changed or not. It can't be. But we need to stop pretending like the US is any kind of example to be emulated.

I appreciate the detailed and researched responses but you're making an imaginary argument, I've never claimed to hold the US as a model for anybody and have posted on many occasions about these socioeconomic issues, including criticism of centrist Democrats. I'm all for fundamental change but you keep avoiding the issue - how do you practically achieve it ?

It's useless having idealistic visions you cannot deliver. Sanders failed dismally in two primaries, you can blame the DNC or the media, but he failed to turn out the youth like 2016, his support stagnated with black voters, and lost massively amongst over 45s. And even with the remote chance he was elected as President, HOW does he get his policies through Congress ? I again ask for a response - if you cannot get universal healthcare passed through liberal Vermont, how will you do so nationwide ?

Look I don't disagree with you on the goals, but I've heard these arguments here in the UK from Jeremy Corbyn supporters, that he was going to bring real change like you mention. Ultimately, he oversaw the worst Election defeat since 1935. He had no ability to compromise, to win over swing voters and made so many wild spending promises he wasn't seen as credible.

Again, I reject the status quoism of Clinton and Blair as vehemently as the impracticality of Sanders-Corbyn politics. But I cannot agree with some leftists that some change isn't better than no change simply because you didn't get everything on your wishlist. Obamacare wasn't singlepayer but it insured 20M people and saved lives. The Paris Accords didn't go far enough but was better than accelerating environmental destruction under Trump. History is not a linear curve but of progress and regress, but you keep fighting and take your victories when you can as opposed to giving up all hope holding unrealistic expectations.

 

[Technics 1210]

In summary, you know where you stand with the right-wing, but you don't know where you stand with the left-wing.

Reason is simple, the left have no idea where they stand. Sometimes they will support Killary Clinton, sometimes Sanders, sometimes Biden, but it's all pic and mix with these lot. Some support BLM, other supports parts of BLM. It's ice cream flavour of the month with the left.

There's a reason why the left are popular with meltdowns, it's tougher defending an alternating lie in the face of the constant truth.