Again, I think that remains to be seen. The drones were being used before he came into office AFAIK, he only ramped up their usage, probably because it's a great way to win brownie points on both sides.
By pulling troops out of the wars, he's "keeping his promise" to the democratic/liberal side. By ramping up drone strikes he's telling the other side of the spectrum that he has no intention of "going easy" on the terrorists.
But again, this isn't a war he started, it's one he's just decided to continue.
Seeing your reply to Ini above, to answer your question, yes. By continuing the war, he's "consolidating his power". By your logic, any time a politician does something politically motivated, he's consolidating his power.
In the context of the overarching discussion however, no it's not the same thing.
So rich and white it's like I'm runnin gainst a cheeeeesecaaaaake
well, then I would say no, because his drone policy has been one of the things Obama has been criticized for from within his own party. I can't imagine anyone who was going to vote republican is now voting for Obama because of the drone policy, however, there have been numerous political commentators I've seen who are actively seeking other politicians to vote for, citing the drone policy as one of the main reasons (along with refusing to prosecute the banks, gitmo, etc). TYT has had at least a couple of debates about this issue, with the only reason some of them will continue to support Obama being, "Romney would be worse".
like, what power do you think the drones have specifically consolidated for him? The NDAA wasn't because of the drones. Sure, I'm with you, Obama has consolidated in law what were powers previous administrations sort of utilized in a grey legal zone, I don't think the drones are the cause.
*it is probably also pertinent to point out, Obama isn't in charge of all of the drones. The CIA controls the vast majority, while the army has a few of their own, and domestic law enforcement is starting to use them.
Many claim that the "Obamacare" is just another ploy for his re-election resume. Seems to have gotten better as time goes by: many people are starting to see the benefits from Obamacare and it is at its highest public approval since it's creation, right now.
Excellent power-plots on Obama's Team's part.
I read an article that outlined a shift of power towards the executive branch in both the Bush and the Obama administrations. If I can be arsed tomorrow, I will post it. Shows that Obama and his team have been working very hard to consolidate and gain even more power since the Bush administration.
"ZOMG! Liek, you think a single drone strike consolidated Obamaz powah!"
No. That's obviously stupid. I do not think that.
Here's what I said:
Keyword there is "part".
Nowhere did I state that the single drone kill of Anwar al-Awlaki consolidated all of his power, like you're trying to paint. Admit it: that's just stupid.
Clearly, from my conversation with Blaxican, you can see that other "parts" are the killing of Osama Bin Laden. Still, another part, as seen with my convo with Blaxican, is "Obamacare".
It's a bit lame when people, like you, try to misrepresent an argument to make it look dumb, and then argue against that argument, and gawk at it with an arrogant attitude. If you want to have a conversation, cool: actually have one. But don't change other people's points, argue against that changed point, and then use an arrogant attitude of false-triumph as though it were legit.
I mentioned that it was a different context in my post, but it's achieving the same consolidation of power to believe anything Obama says, mirror his attitude (the media against Assange) and ignore blatant assassinations without charges. To do that overtly to political opponents would draw comparisons to what Hitler did, like I said.
There are many other ways which are far more discreet and one which is used extensively in political battles in the US is discreditation which can then lead on to imprisonment if the scandal is criminal. Therefore no violence is needed. Failing that assassination, which has happened in the US many, many times before and no matter who performed those assassinations the fact they took out (or tried to) politicians makes a very strong case for the attitude of a society that shapes it's future with murder.
Oh really? Don't you think Muslims were and still are the number one ethnic group to watch after 9/11 and 7/7 all because of what we were told they did? I'm sure many of them do feel under the watch of the various US/UK organisations for no other reasons other that they are Muslim. Obama is simply carrying on that narrative.
So because I'm drawing comparisons between them, you don't like it?
I have said that he is not overt in what he does, it's more subtle, he's not going to go around parading in military uniform gesticulating like a lunatic because that would draw direct comparisons. He doesn't have brownshirts but I'm sure the Occupy protestors might have something to say about the treatment they've received for,you know, exercising their right for free speech.
Nice catch. I left that particular thread because of that yes, it can be disconcerting to have 4-5 members who agree with each other all the time having the same opinion against me. I quote one of them and the rest appear like magic.
I realise this has been going off topic for a while now so for that reason I think I'l leave it there, I've said all I wanted to say.