Obama has been photographed repeatedly [Archive]

View Full Version : Obama has been photographed repeatedly

Tango589

01-13-17, 08:03 AM

Delanski

01-13-17, 08:06 AM

JEEEZUS!

That got me real good.
Can we get this man nominated for Clickbait Award 2017?

Tango589

01-13-17, 08:18 AM

:har:

I just thought it could do with a snappy headline.

However, I will gladly accept any nominations!

Jimbuna

01-13-17, 09:14 AM

Number 7 brings back memories of the Churchill bust story.

AVGWarhawk

01-13-17, 09:26 AM

The White House’s Pete Souza Has Shot Nearly 2M Photos of Obama, Here are 55 of His Favorites

LINK HERE (http://www.ebaumsworld.com/pictures/the-white-houses-pete-souza-has-shot-nearly-2m-photos-of-obama-here-are-55-of-his-favorites/85188566/)

(http://www.ebaumsworld.com/pictures/the-white-houses-pete-souza-has-shot-nearly-2m-photos-of-obama-here-are-55-of-his-favorites/85188566/)
There are serious, heartfelt and just plain candid pictures of Obama, very few of which I would expect to see of the Trumpasaurus Rex in the future.

I would have posted a few here, but my tablet seems to have taken a violent dislike to Photobucket.:roll:

Absolutely! That heartless incredulous shell of a man. :doh: Certainly the media with the ever present camera clicking away automatically will capture the worst of the worst for Trump. But you know, the media did the same with Obama, Hillary and a host of others. It is what the media does. I think Trump said something about that. :hmmm:

These 55 pictures kind of drives that point home, does it not?

Oberon

01-13-17, 09:36 AM

http://new1.fjcdn.com/thumbnails/comments/Ha+ha+you+got+me+good+god+i+know+you+re+_4a111cefb 139e10a03868e3635e50185.gif

Skybird

01-13-17, 09:38 AM

Oberon

01-13-17, 09:41 AM

The man is sympathetic, and is a charismatic speaker, I always gave him that. Plus he showed a good sense of humour on more than just one opportunity.

But the political heritage of his presidency is partly non-existent, partly a disaster, especially foreign politics sees him leaving an alley of ruins leaving behind. Very poor record there.

The pics are great.

His wife also set standards in her role as first lady.

Charm, humour, easiness, and style - irresistable combo. Liking them I do - I just have problems with his policy.

I wonder how different his policy would have been if it had had no obstructions against it? :hmmm: No doubt many people would say that it would have been 'Full Communism'™ but I do wonder. :hmmm:

Still, it's full orange now, maximum GOP. Should be entertaining at least.

Skybird

01-13-17, 09:51 AM

Then I precise myself and must disgaree with his mere intentions already, on many issues. Especially foreign politics. He welcomed in the Muslim brotherhood in Egypt, and messed up relations with Israel. He endlessly babbled of red lines in syria, and then did nothing. He balked about Ukraine and Russia, but had no horse in this race either. He did his share to add to the confusion and mess the aftermath of the so-called Arab Spring was. The strategic interest of the US in the ME has been even more damaged by him after the damage already done by Bush, its due to his indifference as well that the region now is more instabile. He brokered the Iranians a deal that gives them what they want: time to complete their task.

The internal American policies are not so much my interest. The Americans have to sort them out themselves. And it seems Trump already has distributed sledge hammers for that task. Not much will remain from the Obama era.

So Obama hardly has left a lasting, not to mention a positive footprint in history, I think. The echo already is fading. He was sympathetic - but unimportant at best.

Oberon

01-13-17, 09:59 AM

Then I precise myself and must disgaree with his mere intentions already, on many issues. Especially foreign politics. He welcomed in the Muslim brotherhood in Egypt, and messed up relations with Israel. He endlessly babbled of red lines in syria, and then did nothing. He balked about Ukraine and Russia, but had no horse in this race either. He did his share to add to the confusion and mess the aftermath of the so-called Arab Spring was. The strategic interest of the US in the ME has been even more damage by him after the damaged already done by Bush, its due to his indifference as well that the region now is more instabile. He brokered the Iranians a deal that gives them what they want: time to complete their task.

The internal American policies are not so much my interest. The Americans have to sort them out themselves. And it seems Trump already has distributed sledge hammers for that task. Not much will remain from the Obama era.

So Obama hardly has left a lasting, not to mention a positive footprint in history, I think. The echo already is fading. He was sympathetic - but unimportant at best.

That's fair, I agree with most of that. You and I see differently on the importance of some of these actions and the intentions of the nations involved in them so I won't go any further than that, but you're right, he hasn't left a big footprint in history, but equally it wasn't a wholeheartedly negative footprint, and sandwiched in-between Bush Jr and Trump as he was...I feel that future historians may look back on him with a more sympathetic light than he currently do.

kraznyi_oktjabr

01-13-17, 10:45 AM

JEEEZUS!

That got me real good.
Can we get this man nominated for Clickbait Award 2017?Got me too. I doubt anyone can beat this one so we could do-nobel-committee and award the prize right away! :haha:

Dowly

01-13-17, 10:48 AM

http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/GoT_joffrey_approves.gif

Tango589

01-13-17, 04:27 PM

Who's changed the title and spoilt my fun?:wah:

Onkel Neal

01-13-17, 05:39 PM

I had it changed. You know better than that.

Dowly

01-13-17, 06:15 PM

I had it changed. You know better than that. Oh come on, Neal! It was a good joke! :har:

Onkel Neal

01-14-17, 10:56 AM

Hmmm...well, I left it up for a few hours, but fake news about a black (half black) President being assassinated.... Not really.

Tango589

01-14-17, 01:03 PM

Hmmm...well, I left it up for a few hours, but fake news about a black (half black) President being assassinated.... Not really.

Dammit, never thought about that angle, just as a play on words.:oops:

McBlemmen

01-22-17, 11:14 PM

As a non-American, Obama is one of the most likeable (is that a word?) presidents.. ever. He's so relatable somehow.

Tango589

01-23-17, 07:24 AM

As a non-American, Obama is one of the most likeable (is that a word?) presidents.. ever. He's so relatable somehow.

I agree, he just seems to be relaxed, down to earth and had a genuinely decent family.

Catfish

01-23-17, 08:11 AM

I agree, he just seems to be relaxed, down to earth and had a genuinely decent family.

Similar impression in Germany, but in the USA they all seem to hate him. Well not all.. but on Facebook and some US forums the sheer hate expressed is unbelievable, and hard to understand and swallow.

Seems he is a red rag for the "right", because he dared to try to initiate better relations with the Middle East and arabian countries, when he began his presidency. Then getting Bin Laden was a success, though an international tribunal would maybe have been better.
I have no ball in the matter anyway, negative points for me are that Guantanamo is not being closed, and the use of drones to kill insurgents together with what is so lightly called "collateral damage" without court decision.. but then he did not put american soldiers to a direct threat that way. The question is whether a president can even decide about the use of drones himself and alone.

Of course a lot of projects did not succeed, some because of congress, some because he was too idealistic, or not cyncial enough. Or expecting that certain nationalist states would have any kind of logic, or common sense. Well after the arabian answer to an outstretched hand, the US/We/the West will not try this again.
Whatever, he tried to make a lot of things better.

vienna

01-24-17, 12:39 AM

On the Gitmo question: Some in the Far Right GOP recently have been gloating about Obama not being able to complete his campaign promise to close Gitmo and they have been somewhat successful in casting it as a failure by Obama; however, it is closer to the truth Obama's failure to close the prison was in great part due to GOP Congressional members actively blocking any attempts to completely close the facilities. So, yes, Obama failed to close Gitmo, but mainly due to GOP interference, interference for which, oddly, they have not been extensively called to task by the "left-biased mainstream press". I would post a link, but there are so many; just Google "GOP block Gitmo closure"; the whole history is there...

<O>

Rockstar

01-24-17, 10:48 AM

Catfish

01-24-17, 01:34 PM

One of the problems is that some are not even being accused, they were just brought there accidentally, wrong place at the wrong time (see this taxi driver). Since they are not accused (and maybe never will) they just stay where they are.

vienna

01-24-17, 07:49 PM

Mainly due to GOP interference huh?. I suppose that's exactly what you'll link too when select for your search parameter "GOP block GITMO closure".

But if you select for a search the likes of "why isn't GITMO closed" it's not as cut and dry as the usin' s agin them'ins, politics of the day.

Ya know, I did put "why isn't GITMO closed" into the Google search box and got, as the very first link, a CNN article that contained the following:

Obama outlined a blueprint that involves transferring the bulk of remaining detainees to other countries and moving the rest -- who can't be transferred abroad because they're deemed too dangerous -- to an as-yet-undetermined detention facility in the United States.

But Republicans in Congress wasted no time in voicing their opposition to the administration's proposal.http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/23/politics/guantanamo-bay-obama-prison-closure-plan/

Well, this couldn't be; I was told that using the suggested search parameters I would find an entirely different story where the GOP in Congress were not blocking closure of Gitmo, so I looked further and in link after link reference is made to the GOP in Congress taking action after action to block the closure of Gitmo, even to the point of the GOP-controlled Congress passing a law specifically forbidding the closure. Here is the second link in the Google results:

5 Reasons President Obama Hasn't Been Able to Close Guantanamo Bay:

http://time.com/4179278/state-of-the-union-guantanamo-bay-president-obama/

The next several links I sampled yielded similar results; I did, however, do as you suggested but I'm not really finding any real evidence, other than the GOP actually passing a prohibitive law, which would actually require "an act of Congress" to repeal, that there is any other major reason why Gitmo couldn't be closed...

For the GOP to blame Obama for the failure to keep his promise to close Gitmo is akin a card shark using a marked deck blaming the other guy's poker losses on poor playing ability...

<O>

Oberon

01-24-17, 08:41 PM

Ah, but CNN and Time.com are part of the lugenpresse don't forget, therefore anything they say is automatically invalid. :03:

Rockstar

01-24-17, 11:00 PM

I wouldn't say invalid most of which I agree with especially the Time and NPR articles. I don't see what the problem is keeping GITMO open. I think congress did well by keeping it.

Rockstar

01-24-17, 11:58 PM

Hey Vienna (or Oberon) lets pretend you're a congressman what would you do with GITMO, how would you do it and why?

Oberon

01-25-17, 12:43 AM

Hey Vienna (or Oberon) lets pretend you're a congressman what would you do with GITMO, how would you do it and why?

Honestly? Close it, it's too famous to be particularly useful any more, and its closure would bring a good bit of positive publicity amongst my presumed voter base (in this case Democrat). If the need arose for another GITMO, I'm sure there are plenty of places that one can be made on the quiet.
Heck, you could probably make a nice super-max prison on one of the Bering islands or somewhere in Alaska where you could put the GITMO detainees if congress hadn't blocked that.
GITMO is like Groom Lake research facility, too famous to be useful any more.
Plus the whole imprisonment without trial thing, really slippery slope to leave open there. Too easy to be abused, far too easy.

Keep the military base though, be daft to close that.

vienna

01-25-17, 01:27 AM

Hey Vienna (or Oberon) lets pretend you're a congressman what would you do with GITMO, how would you do it and why?

If I were a Congressman, I would have to get all the facts from all the available sources including those not open to the general public or the press; then, and only then, would I make a decision; that's how proper due diligence works: find out all the facts, evaluate all the options and their possible good and/or bad effects, then make the best choice; oh, and, if asked by any of my constituents why Gitmo was not closed a long time ago, I'd say "Ask the GOP congressmen: they passed the law..."...

My actual original post on this matter did not deal with the question of whether or not Gitmo should be closed, it dealt with the inaccurate portrayal of the failure to close as being solely a failure of Obama and not, as is the fact, an impossibility once the GOP Congress passed the law. All I was doing was pointing out a fact...

<O>

Rockstar

01-26-17, 09:05 AM

vienna

01-26-17, 09:59 AM

So you would have gotton your facts together before you opened your mouth and said you were going to do something? Hmmmm, Guess the president should have got his facts straight before he said he was gonna close GITMO then. Since he wasnt able to follow through with his promise it seems to me he is the who failed.

Congress made no such promise.

"No new taxes"

I can't wait to see your reaction when Trump, who has shot his mouth off far more times than any other President in history (wonder if he'll lay claim to that particular "No. 1") runs into the buzz saw that is Congress and some of his promises and boasts start to fall apart. Considering not all of the GOP members of Congress are "yuge" fans of his, it can be expected there will be a goodly degree of push back; this has been seen in the very active and tough participation of GOP committee members in the grilling of Trump's Cabinet appointees. Add to this the next mid-term election is in November 2018 and all 435 House seats and 33 of the 50 Senate seats will be open for reelection; the usual time frame for the incumbents to actively start their reelection campaigns is about a full year, or more, before the election, that means they'll have at best another ten months before they are going to have to have something in the way of productive progress to show their constituents. If Trump manages to somehow 'screw the pooch' on the issues facing Americans in their everyday lives, the GOP Congressional members may well pay the price; also, if Trump continues his ongoing alienation of major portions of the electorate, there may be many more voter who will see the Old Party as not so Grand. Those massive demonstrations across the US the day after Trump's inauguration were more than just extremely large gatherings of people: they were also extremely large gatherings of voters who, at this point, are not inclined to vote GOP and will be even less so if the GOP backs a very possible Trump 'losing hand'. The size f the protest in DC was stunning; what was even more stunning was the overwhelming size of supportive demonstrations and marches in other cities across the US on the same day; here in Los Angeles, the city officials and law enforcement had expected and made plans for a crowd of about twenty-five to thirty thousand people; what they got was a crowd of between 700,000 to 750,000 protesters; most demonstrations held here in Los Angeles in the past have had difficulty in even breaking the 10,000 to 15,000 mark, even on a Saturday; I do know local elected officials, of both parties, are taking a long look at where they now want to fall on issues involving Trump. You see, a demonstration is more than just a large group of people expressing their current opinions; they are also a large group of voters expressing their current opinions, and when a politician sees not just a large group of voters, but actually a massive group of voters, they become, themselves, less inclined to risk their political futures by back unpopular policies and unpopular leaders; some might continue to support Trump and his madness, but they run a very high risk of not having a seat when Congress assembles after November 2018. There is a very high probability, particularly in the House, a goodly number of GOP incumbents will try to, in some way, distance themselves from the Trump circus. Another factor: much has been said by Far-Right pundits and commentators of the perceived 'disarray' of the DEMs and the Left after last November's election, but there is a real problem brewing for the GOP in that Trump is now causing the factions of the DEMs and Left to coalesce, unify, and organize in a manner I haven't seen since the days of Nixon and that can be a potent force in the coming midterm elections; if the DEMs and Left can sway a large number of Independents, like myself, it will be a very hard row to hoe for the GOP...

<O>

Jimbuna

01-26-17, 10:26 AM

Did Trump seriously believe Mexico could be made to pay for the wall he wants erecting?

Mexico: We will not pay for Trump border wall

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38753826

vienna

01-26-17, 10:46 AM

Did Trump seriously believe Mexico could be made to pay for the wall he wants erecting?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38753826

No, you don't get the whole idea: you see, first Trump is going to have the wall built using US taxpayer money that he will divert from other expenditures, if he can get Congress to agree to such a massive diversion of funds, at the risk of their own political futures, and, after the wall is built, at taxpayer expense and the loss of other government services , which we the taxpayers will more than willingly and wholeheartedly support since, after all, it is a Trump idea, then by some means which Trump hasn't really thought of (or given much thought to, at all), the Mexican government will be cowed by the size of the Mighty Orange One's majestic tiny shaking fists and humbly open their coffers to repay our nation and everything will be peachy keen...

So goes the fairy tale and the possibility of a happily ever after is very, very slim...

At least at the postmortem of this sorry affair we here in the US can paraphrase your Bard: "For Trump is an honorable man..."...

<O>

Catfish

01-26-17, 11:24 AM

As i heard the Mexicans are now heavily investing in tunnel digging.

Rockstar

01-26-17, 11:31 AM

You know what they say, don't make promises you cant keep. Because it will eventually come around and bite ya in your hind quarters

Rockstar

01-26-17, 11:33 AM

As i heard the Mexicans are now heavily investing in tunnel digging.

Great Again! Probably buying the equipment from us. lol

Rockstar

01-26-17, 02:14 PM

Honestly? Close it, it's too famous to be particularly useful any more, and its closure would bring a good bit of positive publicity amongst my presumed voter base (in this case Democrat). If the need arose for another GITMO, I'm sure there are plenty of places that one can be made on the quiet.
Heck, you could probably make a nice super-max prison on one of the Bering islands or somewhere in Alaska where you could put the GITMO detainees if congress hadn't blocked that.
GITMO is like Groom Lake research facility, too famous to be useful any more.
Plus the whole imprisonment without trial thing, really slippery slope to leave open there. Too easy to be abused, far too easy.

Keep the military base though, be daft to close that.

Prisoners are a problem, some countries dont want them back others will take them but the prison fears for his life and doesnt want to go. Bring them here and its endless litigation, lawyers making money off it demanding to know about things the government doesnt want to tell, it would be one helluva circus. We could covertly drop them off in the Chicago they'd blend right in :)

Im not even sure the military base needs to stay. I was there in the early 80's and it was a very very busy Feet Training Group. Ships, people were every where, families, golf courses, post exchange, bowling ally, the famous cattle car. Went back in late nineties and the place looked desolate, hardly the hustle and bustle base it once was. Just a place to drop off illegal immigrants until they could be repatriated to Haiti.

Personally I could care less about that place. Other than it being used in the national interest as leverage for a future deal with Cuba I see little use for it.

Oberon

01-26-17, 03:49 PM

Prisoners are a problem, some countries dont want them back others will take them but the prison fears for his life and doesnt want to go. Bring them here and its endless litigation, lawyers making money off it demanding to know about things the government doesnt want to tell, it would be one helluva circus. We could covertly drop them off in the Chicago they'd blend right in :)

Im not even sure the military base needs to stay. I was there in the early 80's and it was a very very busy Feet Training Group. Ships, people were every where, families, golf courses, post exchange, bowling ally, the famous cattle car. Went back in late nineties and the place looked desolate, hardly the hustle and bustle base it once was. Just a place to drop off illegal immigrants until they could be repatriated to Haiti.

Personally I could care less about that place. Other than it being used in the national interest as leverage for a future deal with Cuba I see little use for it.

That is a similar problem with deportation, you send them back, and the country sends them straight back again, usually without a passport. That and staffing difficulties are some of the reasons deportation centers are nearly always full, and perfect grounds for extremist breeding. :/\\!!

Real Catch-22, no good answer to it.

You've got a fair point on the military base, although the trouble with closing them is not knowing if you'd need it again in the future, but it would be a good little bit of publicity to either hand it back or exchange it with Cuba for something. Dunno if it's something a Republican president could do unless it was a Nixon to China sort of affair, but Democrats would probably love it. Not sure it'd go down so well in Florida though, depends on what sort of leverage you got out of it I guess. :hmmm:

But yeah, honestly...I'm in favour of drone warfare, but on the proviso that it's super-accurate, low yield weaponry dealing with targets on an individual basis. One shot, one kill. Zero collateral. That's the anti-insurgent warfare that the west should be working towards, IMHO. Of course, the big weak point there is intel, which brings us into a very current topic of conversation, 'enhanced interrogation techniques' aka torture.
I can see why it would be a tempting route to take, but I don't think the negative publicity and political fallout are worth it, not when you can get almost as much intel through ELINT and global allied networks.
At the very least, if you're going to reinstitute torture then don't brag about it on primetime television, that's just stupid. :nope:

eddie

01-26-17, 05:40 PM

Seem's like Trump's inner circle is starting to work towards a stroke. Steve Bannon is losing it, has said the media should just shut up! The Democratic Party is not the problem, its the media,lol Sure glad it isn't the policies of Trump that is getting everyone to stop and pause every time he opens his mouth, its that darn media catching him screwing up that's causing all the problems.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump%e2%80%99s-chief-strategist-says-news-media-should-%e2%80%98keep-its-mouth-shut%e2%80%99/ar-AAmhL9O?li=BBnbcA1

Oberon

01-26-17, 06:37 PM

25th Amendment - Section Four anyone? :hmmm: :har:

Platapus

01-26-17, 08:10 PM

25th Amendment - Section Four anyone? :hmmm: :har:

It would be tough to get the 2/3 vote from both houses on this and then the President could just submit another declaration and the 21 day process can endless repeat itself.

Impeachment is still the only legal way to involuntarily remove a president.

Being stupid, egotistical, narcissistic, or incompetent are not grounds for impeachment and a good thing else we would be going through presidents like potato chips.

eddie

01-26-17, 08:13 PM

It would be tough to get the 2/3 vote from both houses on this and then the President could just submit another declaration and the 21 day process can endless repeat itself.

Impeachment is still the only legal way to involuntarily remove a president.

Being stupid, egotistical, narcissistic, or incompetent are not grounds for impeachment and a good thing else we would be going through presidents like potato chips.

:haha:

vienna

01-26-17, 08:14 PM

Great Again! Probably buying the equipment from us. lol

More likely than not, buy them from China ;or, maybe, Japan or some other country. China must be salivating right now over the prospect filling the void to be created when the Trump plans go into effect and China has the opportunity of increased trade with Mexico and greater market share for their products, not to mention extending Chinese influence to the very doorstep of the USA...

<O>

vienna

01-26-17, 08:16 PM

...Being stupid, egotistical, narcissistic, or incompetent are not grounds for impeachment and a good thing else we would be going through presidents like potato chips.

The main difference is the vast majority of Americans really, really like potato chips...

<O>

August

01-26-17, 10:27 PM

25th Amendment - Section Four anyone? :hmmm: :har:

If they want to make it a real civil war I guess.

Oberon

01-26-17, 11:01 PM

More likely than not, buy them from China ;or, maybe, Japan or some other country. China must be salivating right now over the prospect filling the void to be created when the Trump plans go into effect and China has the opportunity of increased trade with Mexico and greater market share for their products, not to mention extending Chinese influence to the very doorstep of the USA...

<O>

Wonder when the first PLAN warships will visit Manzanillo? Thinking about it, the PRC has a lot it can offer Mexico, China isn't afraid to get its hands dirty, it could deploy forces to Mexico in order to crush the drug cartels and provide security for Mexico in return for complete Chinese domination of its markets. Of course, some Chinese forces would probably have to have a permanent basing there in order to provide that security as required.
Would be a nice deal for them.

If they want to make it a real civil war I guess.

Sweet! BAe could do with the money. :yep: