I dunno Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter, seem to have been personally good people. That’s two recent US presidents. Then I guess I would add some super low hanging fruit like Nelson Mandela, Frederick the Great, John II Komnenos, any of the Five Good Emperors, Cyrus the Great, Ashoka, and one could keep going.
EDIT: To all those pestering me about how US presidents presided over criminal imperialist policies, here is my answer from down below:
OP talked about “glaring character defects”.
These are policy failures and state crimes, arguably attributed to the American state as a whole, and the long term US imperialist policies, rather to the singular person of the president.
You might have noticed that I added Frederick the Great in the list, which tells you exactly what my understanding of the challenge was.
I’m not here to defend US imperialism, don’t @ me.
Without the US, the world would be much more peaceful today, most of the current wars and terrorisms are caused by US interventions, directly and indirectly.
That is an incredible list. Did a find for a few things I personally knew about and have always been disappointed in Obama for… and sure enough found them. First one I searched, was extending the Bush tax cuts on the rich. I remember Bill O’Reilly saying “Oh, if I have to pay taxes, I’m going to have to fire people, and that’s on Obama, so tax cuts means less jobs!” (so glad Bill got canned) and Obama just fucking caved like a spineless coward.
These are policy failures and state crimes, arguably attributed to the American state as a whole, and the long term US imperialist policies, rather to the singular person of the president.
You might have noticed that I added Frederick the Great in the list, which tells you exactly what my understanding of the challenge was.
Obama lied to the left to gain power, that’s enough to disqualify him right there.
Also Washington was the greatest president in our history because he willingly let go of his power. He could have been a king but he chose to step down instead to set future precedent.
Washington was the richest man in the US at the time, and had the most to gain from indigenous eviction. The Iroquios named him “the town destroyer”, for burning down dozens of their cities. He also owned slaves and supported the institution just like most presidents after him (I think 10 presidents in a row were southern slave-holders like himself).
And also, its the US, not China, that has slave labor camps. Just because an anti-semitic evangelical christian (adrian zenz) who works for the US government claims that China has forced labor, doesn’t make it so. These claims have been debunked over and over.
And also, its the US, not China, that has slave labor camps. Just because an anti-semitic evangelical christian (adrian zenz) who works for the US government claims that China has forced labor, doesn’t make it so. These claims have been debunked over and over.
China has forced labour, according the the UN Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery, including its causes and consequences: https://docs.un.org/en/A/HRC/51/26
If the UN fucking rapporteur deems it reliable enough, and if the UN HRC hasn’t found reason to retract this report, then I have zero reason to believe some internet rando that it has been debunked. For all I know, your one liner responses are no different from pro-Zionist hasbara casting doubt on UN reports on Palestine.
I’m supposed to discount the UN Special Rapporteur because I’m supposed to believe the ramblings of the website of a RT contributor? Do you have any Breitbart sources too?
The US funding something via a quasi-independent organization (that Trump is defunding) is proof of the US funding something. It is not proof that the allegations are wrong, that’s just a version of the ad-hominem fallacy. During the Cold War, in Greece any remotely credible link to the USSR was used to crack down on trade unions, political organizations etc. Same thing happened during the Grande Noirceur in Quebec with the “padlock law”. Sumud in Canada has recently been banned as a terrorist front for having “links” with Palestinian resistance. The pattern here is common: instead of addressing what is being said, there is an attack on “the links” of the one saying the thing. It’s a cowardly, lazy and fallacious arguing tactic that I reject on its face.
[Xinjiang Vocational Education and Training Centers] prolewiki Xinjiang_Vocational_Education_and_Training_Centers
“Prolewiki”? Give me a break. What’s next, the conservapedia or the uncyclopedia?
Reddit drama disproves Uighur genocide. We’re being super serious here.
Also notably, it’s the WUC (a far right org that again your reporter cited) that supports Israel.
“My reporter” makes it sound like some journalist. We are talking about the UN Special Rapporteur of the UN HRC. What the WUC is is besides the point. It might be Elon Musk’s cat for all I care. What they say is what is important. And I am willing to assume that the UN Special Rapporteur did his fucking job and did more than just say “hey some randos are saying XYZ”. Same level of trust as I accord to Francesca Albanese.
Some links removed because the instance wouldn’t let me post them. Must be a CIA plot or some shit.
I mean we absolutely could call out their flaws too, someone with that much power/responsibility is going to do abhorrent things (drone strikes with Obama being an easy one to bring up). Just like the four on Mount Rushmore these things aren’t what we typically call out because they either were “of the times” or not on the same scale as their accomplishments.
They called Obama the Deporter in Chief. Trump wishes he could get a nickname like that. Carter himself was a nice guy but his below average presidency led to Reagan.
The drone strikes thing is a bad example. If he didn’t touch it, individual combat units could use drones with impunity. He required drone strikes to be approved by his office.
Tell me if you had the choice between sending in boots to kill a guy, or drone strike, would you really ever risk your guys getting shot?
He added red tape, the minimum thing he could do. I’ll agree with criticism that he did the bare minimum, but all these comments about this frame it like he was horny for drones. That’s reductive and misleading.
Your comment is exactly the point I was trying to make. The world is complex and imperfect, so anyone with the power/responsibility of a president is going to do controversial things.
I dunno Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter, seem to have been personally good people. That’s two recent US presidents. Then I guess I would add some super low hanging fruit like Nelson Mandela, Frederick the Great, John II Komnenos, any of the Five Good Emperors, Cyrus the Great, Ashoka, and one could keep going.
EDIT: To all those pestering me about how US presidents presided over criminal imperialist policies, here is my answer from down below:
I’m not here to defend US imperialism, don’t @ me.
Obama was incredibly evil.
Without the US, the world would be much more peaceful today, most of the current wars and terrorisms are caused by US interventions, directly and indirectly.
That’s a claim I would LOVE for you to attempt to back up.
Just off the top of my head I would suspect UK, French, and Soviet imperialism to have been as big if not a bigger factor than the USA.
Just count military bases burgerbrain
That is an incredible list. Did a find for a few things I personally knew about and have always been disappointed in Obama for… and sure enough found them. First one I searched, was extending the Bush tax cuts on the rich. I remember Bill O’Reilly saying “Oh, if I have to pay taxes, I’m going to have to fire people, and that’s on Obama, so tax cuts means less jobs!” (so glad Bill got canned) and Obama just fucking caved like a spineless coward.
Obama?? Obama??? The Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya Obama? You must be joking, right?
OP talked about “glaring character defects”.
These are policy failures and state crimes, arguably attributed to the American state as a whole, and the long term US imperialist policies, rather to the singular person of the president.
You might have noticed that I added Frederick the Great in the list, which tells you exactly what my understanding of the challenge was.
Carter supported Pol Pot and Obama was a monster to people in the Middle East, neither can be considered to be “good people.”
Obama lied to the left to gain power, that’s enough to disqualify him right there.
Also Washington was the greatest president in our history because he willingly let go of his power. He could have been a king but he chose to step down instead to set future precedent.
Yes! Buying dentures made from slave teeth is overshadowed by the fact this man did what very few would have done by setting power aside.
Would we get labeled by history as evil because we might have bought a product from China made in a work camp?
Washington was the richest man in the US at the time, and had the most to gain from indigenous eviction. The Iroquios named him “the town destroyer”, for burning down dozens of their cities. He also owned slaves and supported the institution just like most presidents after him (I think 10 presidents in a row were southern slave-holders like himself).
And also, its the US, not China, that has slave labor camps. Just because an anti-semitic evangelical christian (adrian zenz) who works for the US government claims that China has forced labor, doesn’t make it so. These claims have been debunked over and over.
No, China has forced labor camps.
The US has prison work camps, but most prisoners don’t have to work if they dont want to, it isn’t forced.
Anything to back that up other than white-supremacist vibes?
Because the majority of Muslim countries disagree with you. The only ones who believe that China has forced labor, are the US and UK, countries that have been bombing Muslim countries for decades.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang_internment_camps
Check those sources, its Zenz all the way down. These have been debunked over and over again, even reddit doesn’t believe this anymore.
You will need to argue with Amnesy International and Icij (links below). I cannot be convinced of your point of view.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2021/06/china-draconian-repression-of-muslims-in-xinjiang-amounts-to-crimes-against-humanity/
https://www.icij.org/investigations/china-cables/xinjiang-police-files-uyghur-mugshots-detention/
China has forced labour, according the the UN Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery, including its causes and consequences: https://docs.un.org/en/A/HRC/51/26
I looked that doc, and they source debunked Zenz reports, and WUC. So nothing new.
If the UN fucking rapporteur deems it reliable enough, and if the UN HRC hasn’t found reason to retract this report, then I have zero reason to believe some internet rando that it has been debunked. For all I know, your one liner responses are no different from pro-Zionist hasbara casting doubt on UN reports on Palestine.
Does this also apply to Zenz claims about LGBT people then? Or are you just a dishonest scum bag?
Are Zenz’s opinions about lgbt people cited in UN HRC reports as reliable fact? No? So wtf are you talking about?
Someone should tell that UN reporter to stop using anti-semitic US state department sources then.
Some sources debunking this are
Also notably, it’s the WUC (a far right org that again your reporter cited) that supports Israel.
Are you joking? You must be joking, right?
A delegation of envoys and senior diplomats is not a fact finding mission. It is wining and dining and saying nice things. Give me a break.
I’m supposed to discount the UN Special Rapporteur because I’m supposed to believe the ramblings of the website of a RT contributor? Do you have any Breitbart sources too?
Opinion pieces are what we call “debunking” now?
The US funding something via a quasi-independent organization (that Trump is defunding) is proof of the US funding something. It is not proof that the allegations are wrong, that’s just a version of the ad-hominem fallacy. During the Cold War, in Greece any remotely credible link to the USSR was used to crack down on trade unions, political organizations etc. Same thing happened during the Grande Noirceur in Quebec with the “padlock law”. Sumud in Canada has recently been banned as a terrorist front for having “links” with Palestinian resistance. The pattern here is common: instead of addressing what is being said, there is an attack on “the links” of the one saying the thing. It’s a cowardly, lazy and fallacious arguing tactic that I reject on its face.
“Prolewiki”? Give me a break. What’s next, the conservapedia or the uncyclopedia?
Awesome bro.
Some people of ethnic group X did something (according to random internet sources). Ergo… nothing bad can possibly be happening to ethnic group X?
Reddit drama disproves Uighur genocide. We’re being super serious here.
“My reporter” makes it sound like some journalist. We are talking about the UN Special Rapporteur of the UN HRC. What the WUC is is besides the point. It might be Elon Musk’s cat for all I care. What they say is what is important. And I am willing to assume that the UN Special Rapporteur did his fucking job and did more than just say “hey some randos are saying XYZ”. Same level of trust as I accord to Francesca Albanese.
Some links removed because the instance wouldn’t let me post them. Must be a CIA plot or some shit.
Fr, like look into the companies that get you your fruits and vegetables. You can’t escape unethical consumption.
There were many other types of dentures not made from human teeth
I mean we absolutely could call out their flaws too, someone with that much power/responsibility is going to do abhorrent things (drone strikes with Obama being an easy one to bring up). Just like the four on Mount Rushmore these things aren’t what we typically call out because they either were “of the times” or not on the same scale as their accomplishments.
They called Obama the Deporter in Chief. Trump wishes he could get a nickname like that. Carter himself was a nice guy but his below average presidency led to Reagan.
The drone strikes thing is a bad example. If he didn’t touch it, individual combat units could use drones with impunity. He required drone strikes to be approved by his office.
Tell me if you had the choice between sending in boots to kill a guy, or drone strike, would you really ever risk your guys getting shot?
He added red tape, the minimum thing he could do. I’ll agree with criticism that he did the bare minimum, but all these comments about this frame it like he was horny for drones. That’s reductive and misleading.
Your comment is exactly the point I was trying to make. The world is complex and imperfect, so anyone with the power/responsibility of a president is going to do controversial things.
Oh I get it.
Yeah running countries is a series of shitty compromises, unless you are small enough to gain consensus.