Talk:Barack Obama

	This United States politics related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed. If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>

, (new)

Not my own work, but...

...check this out. I'd like to include this image in the article as a visually effective way of dispelling the absurd conspiracy theory that Obama is a Muslim. What do you think? Could we not credit the originator? Field Dreamer (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

More stuff to add

Obama issued executive order 12333 before leaving the presidential office for the final time. This order lets the NSA share raw streams of internet data it collected with the DHS, DEA, and FBI. The NSA collects random info on American citizens with way less oversight than every other federal government project. The Elecronic Frontier Foundation, (a civil rights project for the internet-era) criticized the order as a way for organizations like the FBI to evade its own rules about protecting the privacy of American citizens. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/01/obama-expands-surveillance-powers-his-way-out

Bob-smith (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

That murder cat

I'm not defending Obama here, dropping bombs in the way that Obama dropped bombs is not morally defensible, buuuut... Does the murderers cat go here? Are we applying this cat consistently and correctly? Maybe we are, I just feel like we should talk about it to make sure on this one. SolPyre (talk) 18:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@ClimbTheStairs You added the cat, wanna talk about it? SolPyre (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Considering the description of Category:Murderers is "Category for people who have killed", and judging from the fact that people like Stalin and Trotsky are in there, the killing doesn't seem to have to be direct. Many people have also been executed, died in war, or killed some other way during Obama's administration (and also with most/every other presidents, such as Bush and Trump).

Is it applied consistently, however? Certainly not! Personally, I think the description makes it way too general, and the category would be much bigger if it were consistently applied, but currently, it's very small and quite disorganized. I think it would be better if the category were changed instead, since the description doesn't really match the intuitive understanding of "murderer".YXTQWF_climbThe^Stairs 22:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, I think if the cat is gonna be here we should mention murder in the article somewhere. To that end I've added a footnote. Its clumsy but its the only idea I had. SolPyre (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the less the Category:Murderers description makes sense, and I think it would be better to change it than to add hundreds more pages to that category.YXTQWF_climbThe^Stairs 03:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

"Murder" is a legal term and I honestly find the category itself, unless tightly defined and backed up with meticulous sources, a lot of trouble for what it is. We have Category:Convicted felons as an example of criminals, works better since it's so specific. Categorizing Obama as a "murderer" is just the end-of-page jab that isn't really meaningful commentary and I would strongly advise against it. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 05:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

"Murder" is indeed a legal term and it should be used as such. Heads of state are associated with killings of various types in the course of their duties. Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Now Obama may be responsible for extra-judicial killings, but they were ostensibly not unlawful in the technical sense, assuming they were permissible under American law. There is no pending issue with the ICC regarding Obama's actions. The ICC has just issued an arrest warrant for President Putin. The proof that he is a murderer of defenseless people is manifestly demonstrated daily. Unless someone can provide a good argument that Obama is different from other Heads of state, I would think, Lefty, you should remove the murderer category.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Sure, murder is a legal term, but it is not only a legal term. I think it is better for us to apply the term murder without considering legal technicalities. Hypothetically, if a dictator wrote a law stating that any time they chose to shoot someone in the head it wasn't legally murder, we should still label the head-shooting murder. Similarly, if Obama ordered drone bombings with such disregard for civilian life that the drone-strikes amount to murder, we should call it murder regardless of the legal technicality. -- That said the word murder might not be the best descriptor to use here. Is there a category that better describes what we have here? -SolPyre (talk) 00:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Does Gandhi get the tag as well? Does Zelenskyy? Should they? I'm just trying to bracket the usage here: How far from direct culpability does our outrage extend? — Chbarts (talk) 02:35, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@Chbarts How far does our outrage extend? Idk, does our outrage matter? The extent of our outrage probably isn't measurably significant -- But our lust for categorization! The extend of our lust for categorization is immeasurably vast! As for Gandhi and Zelenskyy, have they directly ordered any deaths wrongfully? I'm not aware of them having done so, but if you've got something murderous that they've done let's go slap the cat on them too (after we work out exactly what the criteria to use are). SolPyre (talk) 04:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Japan–South Korea Comfort Women Agreement

I think this should be included as a critical session of Obama. The agreement was condemned by all liberals and feminists in the South Korea. The agreement did not reflect what the victims wanted, and the Japanese government is lobbying the world to remove monuments related to Japanese Military Sexual Slavery victims based on the agreement. These Japanese attempts have drawn much criticism in the German media.# Umaru16 (talk) 04:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I honestly feel that this is the racism of Westerners and Japanese people. Why are Westerners sensitive to Holocaust issues insensitive to Comfort Women issues? The agreement Obama imposed on South Korea to keep China in check militarily is a violation of the human rights of surviving sexual slavery victims. For victims like Lee Yong-soo, Obama is more of a white supremacist than Trump. Japanese war crimes are crimes of Axis powers, just like the Nazis. Umaru16 (talk) 05:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd be fine with a single sentence criticizing Obama for his stance on the issue (as long as it's worded well, you need to explain why his stance is inadequate). But we don't need an entire section detailing how he is viewed by a certain subgroup of people in South Korea, if we had that we might as well include how he is viewed by every subgroup in every country and that would get excessive quickly. Just keep it focused; the article is about Obama specifically, not a greater overview of U.S.-Japan-Korea relations. Plutocow (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

# - How about this? (Obama's push for an agreement that ignores the victims was aimed at keeping China in check, which must be mentioned in the article.) Umaru16 (talk) 23:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Sunshine Policy

Obama's opposition to the Sunshine Policy and Trump's support for the Sunshine Policy is a generally accepted view in South Korea. What's really absurd is that the liberals in the US blame Trump and defend Yoon Suk-yeol.# The Yoon Suk-yeol is called "K-Trump" in South Korea.

Because of the anachronistic hawkish diplomacy of American liberals, South Korean liberals favor U.S. Trumpists, and [anti-North Korean] South Korean Trumpists favor Joe Biden. Umaru16 (talk) 05:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

What does this have to do with Obama in particular? This content is just not relevant to the article. Plutocow (talk) 21:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Obama has consistently been a liberal hawk on North Korean issues. He had moderate foreign policies in Cuba and Iran, but never in North Korea. Rather, Trump's approach to North Korea is similar to Obama's approach to Cuba and Iran. Obama tried to keep China in check by maintaining hostile relations with North Korea, which is one of the reasons why Democratic Socialists of America and other American leftists criticize Obama. I think Trump has done nothing wrong on North Korea issues, and Obama deserves criticism. (Donald Trump's everything else was rubbish, but the only policy he did well is North Korea policy.) Umaru16 (talk) 23:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)