ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?!?!?

He's obviously auditioning for UN SecGen on his record of fucking up the USA, which as it turns out is very popular outside of the USA.

WHITE GENOCIDE
>WHITE GENOCIDE
WHITE GENOCIDE
>WHITE GENOCIDE
WHITE GENOCIDE
>WHITE GENOCIDE
WHITE GENOCIDE
>WHITE GENOCIDE

That was nicely cherry picked and well taken out of context but you could have at least let him finish what he was going to say.

People rightly look forward to the Clinton meltdown but seeing Obama's bitchy mug right after he hears his legacy is being Trumped will be even sweeter.

Yeah, or for any NSA, GQHQ, 5 Eyes, 9-Eyes, 14-eyes country for that sake... Just google it, it's not news. It's ages ago (((they))) gained control.

youtube.com/watch?v=cNuD3bcsSCA

>giving a shit about the internet
nice flag

HES A BLACK MALE!

>>giving a shit about the internet
>he doesn't realise they are giving it away so you can't have free speech on the internet
Nice flag

Congress can stop it.

...

Does he not realize hackers could gain access into our military? Our weapons? He's literally trying to plot world war 3.

I think he will provoke WW3
There is a lot of rumours that he is trying to get a 3rd term presidency

Instead of worrying about limiting our freedom this nigger should be worried about restraining us from lynching him.
What a dirty globalist slime bag.

Are you fucking retarded?

Exactly! Accuse a Russian for hacking into emails is one, China delivering EMT blasts and shutting our power grid is another. Iran can literally nuke Israel!

npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/09/26/495396014/republicans-say-obama-administration-is-giving-away-the-internet

He literally said, "We need to trade freedom for security."
That's exactly what he said.

So Bush 2.0?

Goddamn traitor

>retarded for stating an opinion hundreds of thousands of people share,
he is already provoking war with russia and there is shootings, stabbings and protests/riots in a state at the moment across America, Martial Law might get declared

These apes just threatened the courthouse they are going to the suburbs and break into people's houses now and they are say "Hands Down, Shoot Back"
Also the economy is collapsing big time

Watch the country split again.

>video is typical
>just a snippet of a categorical point of discussion
>a sound bite, if you will
>of course it cuts off when the context would have been revealed
>stupid fucking people will be the death of us all

Tells the truth
Cred Forums shits itself
Greatest president

What an absolute insult to the founding fathers and the very foundations your nation was created on.

I cannot believe he said this.

He is advocating for a UN international court that has jurisdiction over America and primacy of law. . . laws that are made by the UN general assembly of every nation.

Context doesn't make it any better

>We can only eliminate extreme poverty if the sustainable development goals that we have set are more than words on paper. Human ingenuity now gives us the capacity to feed the hungry and give all of our children — including our girls — the education that is the foundation for opportunity in our world. But we have to put our money where our mouths are.

>And we can only realize the promise of this institution’s founding — to replace the ravages of war with cooperation — if powerful nations like my own accept constraints. Sometimes I’m criticized in my own country for professing a belief in international norms and multilateral institutions. But I am convinced that in the long run, giving up some freedom of action — not giving up our ability to protect ourselves or pursue our core interests, but binding ourselves to international rules over the long term — enhances our security. And I think that’s not just true for us.

>If Russia continues to interfere in the affairs of its neighbors, it may be popular at home, it may fuel nationalist fervor for a time, but over time it is also going to diminish its stature and make its borders less secure. In the South China Sea, a peaceful resolution of disputes offered by law will mean far greater stability than the militarization of a few rocks and reefs.

>We are all stakeholders in this international system, and it calls upon all of us to invest in the success of institutions to which we belong. And the good news is, is that many nations have shown what kind of progress is possible when we make those commitments. Consider what we’ve accomplished here over the past few years.

time.com/4501910/president-obama-united-nations-speech-transcript/

American Revolution 2.0 when?

This nigger doesn't even try to hide he is a globalist kike puppet.

Do American black people regret voting for this cunt? They must hate him even more than white people do.

>international norms

yeah if only we were like the majority of the human race like africa, india or china everything would be great *takes a shit in the street and starves to death*

you're gonna piss me off before the debate even starts pol. this nigger wants to sign some UN anti-gun shit too!

>replace the ravages of war with cooperation
>accept constraints
>giving up some freedom of action
"But not the ability to pursue our core interest."
That's key in this clip. He's not making any concessions of his own. The restraint on freedom of action is a metaphor for "personal liberty, right to protect and privacy".
It's the same old Obama bullshit in a different wrapper.

Fuck this dumb traitorous nigger.

It's too bad we don't hang people anymore.

>third term

No such possibility.

By proxy.

Civil War 2 soon.

World War 3 soon.

Americanism, not globalism. Will be our credo.

It is a core interest of the United States to maintain its complete sovereignty.

Maybe use the complete context user. He was speaking about the United Nations actions not freedoms within our country. This whole speech was centered around global citizenship in the coming generations and the benefits of safety and security to our children that result of having the guts to help others in the world as opposed to just yourself.

He's right, Americans need to abolish things like the second amendment and criminalise hate speech so we can all be safer.

That's if Hillary actually wins, doesn't bomb in the debate, doesn't die, doesn't slip up and say more dumb shit.

If Hillary wins were all fucked anyways, Obongos 3rd term isn't going to matter much.

he a guud boi white man alway hold hims back, lawdy watahmelllunz muh BET show be on!!!

thats your average black. the ones that manage to pull themselves up to civility are the rare outliers, and should be commended. the rest need an asskicking.

He really should have been hung by now.
He's a total traitor, but Hillary is even worse and neither the FBI or AG's office would lift a finger toward any charges against her for her blatantly obvious crimes.

here's the full context:
That's not what he was saying at all

with out primacy of american law, you are throwing 250 years of judicial precedent out the window to be replaced by a legislative body made up of mostly gooks, spics and nogs who hate you for existing.

Disgusting

Thank god Obama's soon to leave office. Its been a shitty 8 years.

What a fucking idiot. History will not be kind to Obama

>Drumpsters believe this LMAO

Obama will be remembered as one of top 5 presidents along with Hillary and Bill.

the issue is it doesnt matter how soon he leaves, he wants to do as much damage to the country as he can before he does out of spite for not being able to push his agendas

nod de breedoms

>this level of damage control

>lots of people believe it therefore it cannot possibly be retarded
Because we all know there's not enough retards in the world for that, right?

If you truly believe Obama wants a third World War because he wants a 3rd term, you are fucking retarded.

Fir all the wrong reasons.

Earning overtime prepping for the debates?

Are you memeing or do you actually believe people don't like Obama? His approvals is the highest it's ever been.

Check the trip. He's been shitposting for a few months now.

>implying helping ones own country isn't helping others
You do realize countries comprise of more than one person right?

>pointing out how popular Obama is is shit posting

Post more American bears please.

>angryfrogmem.jpg
You almost fit in but that kek isn't angry

I hate Obama so much

>yfw he will go down as the textbook example of why niggers cannot run countries

classic obongo

Don't post more. The shills want to save them so they can pretend to fit in.

>This whole speech was centered around global citizenship
Globalists need to all be hanged.

GLOBALIST SELLOUT PIECE OF GARBAGE TB.H

>Highest approval since being elected
>Saved the economy
>moved towards civilized healthcare
>Created millions of jobs
>Bad

I fucking hate niggers.

>americans go off the chain because they are fucking retards who know nothing about international relations
He has said nothing controversial there. The only way to solve the security dilemma is to create an international hierarchy that states are subject to. Otherwise we are doomed to insecurity for all time. This might not seem like a big deal to dumbcunt yankees, but when your country isn't on top anymore - and no empire lasts forever - you'll wish you did something about strengthening international institutions while you had the chance.

Obama is saying that the US state should give up some freedom of action, not that US citizens should give up their individual freedoms. He is delineating an extremely mainstream argument against unfettered state sovereignty. You spastics will shit the bed, but unfettered state sovereignty has only been the norm for a very short period of time. People managed just find under the HRE, the Concert system, any of the various European confederations (like the entirety of Switzerland), and so on.

Now, there are strong arguments against limiting state sovereignty. First and foremost is that it requires the consent of the state to do it, meaning any time it is inconvenient the state in question will just say "nah get fukt" and do whatever they want. This is why Obama refers to international norms. The only way to prevent this from happening is to build up a persuasive international norm that can hold in most situations - like the anti-nuclear-weapons norm, or the anti-landmine norm, or the anti-blinding-lazers norm. To build these international norms requires engagement in the international community, and it requires leadership. Obama sees America's place as being that leader; as being the torchbearer who can guide the world to a more civilised and more rational international system that causes less human suffering and more prosperity.

only because of all the retards and niggers who love sucking his black cock

martial law can postpone an election, giving him a 3rd term (kinda)

It is literally exactly what he was saying. He was talking about state sovereignty, not individual freedoms.

Sauce?

>international norms
>multilateral institutions

NO SORROW FOR SOROS

>civilized healthcare
>millions of jobs
Where

Obama will only be remembered for being a dindu. His policy's will soon fade from memory.

Still its sad to think that in the future Obama will still be mentioned in schools as the first black potus. Even if more a competent black prez comes along later.

>Obama is saying that the US state should give up some freedom of action
Yes and he's a retarded globalist and fuck Obama.

>obongo

8th can't come faster

Try leaving your house

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government. the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.
Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?
It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.
Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

DOES NO ONE REMEMBER HIS WARNING?????

(you)

shut the fuck up you submissive pussy. Quit pretending like you know about anything other than being a bitch. World would be a lot better if faggots like you and Obama would mind your own fucking business, thinking you know whats best. I have lead for all communist nigger lovers.

Not an argument

...

> to bad "we" fuck off leaf most a cannook ever hung was a white flag.

>giving an shit about flags
Nice Flag

The healthcare system that convinced 3/5 doctors to retire

>murica
>giving up freedoms
>ever
Someone lynch this nigger

>everyone I don't like is a jew or controlled by said jews.

>hurr durr we can just continue as nationalists and aggressive expansionists forever and ever and despite me advocating that we aggressively pursue our interests and they advocating they aggressively pursue theirs, there will never be a war!! Even despite this being the exact situation of WW2, where everyone (except the aggressive nationalists) was trying to avoid war and it happened anyway

>>>/stormfront/
If you're going to post here you're going to need to post at a higher standard than that. I have Honours in political science (and yes, I have a job in the field too, they do exist). Obama has expressed an incredibly mainstream position that you retards only find controversial because you don't understand it.

I'm not even saying it's right. There are strong arguments against it. I wouldn't have a problem with you spastics being against it if only you actually understood what it was and what the real arguments against it are. "HE'S A NIGGER GLOBALIST KIKE PUPPET" is not an argument, and Cred Forums is not a colony of whatever dumbfuck white nationalist site you filtered out of when you saw our dank memes. You won't fit in here if you don't lift your game. We can all smell the newfag radiating off you in putrid, fetid waves.

I don't care.

I meant we as in we in the west.

He's saying America needs to stop swinging it's dick around like it owns the earth and learn to get along with other super powers instead of flexing your peen at them.

not the Freedoms nigger

Fuck you globalist kike. All of these globalist regimes are designed to gradually erode freedoms and national sovereignty (see: the EU). I'll take some occasional wars instead of your liberal, open-border multicultural hellhole.

Your job is bullshit and you should feel bad
>Getting paid for pol tier discussion

WHAT THE FUCK WAKE UP AND STOP POSTING MEMES FOR FUCKC SAKE AMERICA ARE YOU GOING TO FUCKING GROW BALLS ONE DAY. FOR FUCK SAKE WAKE UP AND DO SOMETHING DSKJGDSOKGJHSOGHPDOHGOSDHJGOSDH

>get along with other super powers
when one shows up we can talk

My record is in dire need of correction and you look like you can help a poor soul like me. What was he going to say?

>... we the west....
so you're a globalist.. like obama the nigger you want hung for being a globalist like yourself....

>I'll take some occasional wars instead of your liberal, open-border multicultural hellhole.
Said by the man who has never experienced war in his life and has nothing but disdain for those who have. Your words are empty.

Anyway, strengthening international institutions doesn't necessitate huge changes to domestic politics. The EU is a poor example of international institutions. Much better to talk about the landmine ban. It was designed with a specific purpose, it fulfilled that purpose, it has prevented potentially millions of people from maiming and death, and it never infringed on your freedumbs one little bit. Should we scrap the landmine ban because international co-operation triggers you? Does it make your pee-pee hard seeing brown people with one leg, or one arm? Do you watch third-world funerals instead of porn?

Free market says my job is worth exactly as much as it's worth, my dood. Are you saying the free market is wrong?

So this is basically globalism in a nutshell, right?

>Obama just wants a international agreement like Geneva Convention, he's not a globalist and this isn't about Russia
Keep trying.

>we should give up our right to set landmines in a war
No. And the US hasn't signed that shit anyway.

>prevented potentially millions of people from maiming and death
This is completely a lie. In a serious war, nobody would actually obey such a treaty.

>done for

How bout we bind the nigger to a crucifix?

The next time you shitpost something offensive saudi arabia might drag you into court and have you executed, dipshit.

>laws that are made by an unelected body

No. Fuck them and fuck you.

When you trade freedom for security you get neither.

Niggers should never have been given rights. Ship them back to the fucking jungle.

We should scrap the landmine ban because its a shitty idea that weakens us. Even worse we all know the moment we find ourselves at a disadvantage because of the treaty we'll throw it away. Same for bans cluster munitions.

Most of these minor international agreements are for show and convenience only. Because the consequences for defying any agreement rarely outweigh the benefits. Especially for a an powerful nation.

believe he's asking for a source for your claims... not your gut feeling

>No. And the US hasn't signed that shit anyway.
The US has signed it in all but name. They have agreed not to lay any new minefields, but they can't sign it because they still have the minefield in the DMZ in Korea.

>This is completely a lie. In a serious war, nobody would actually obey such a treaty.
The point isn't to prevent it from happening in a serious war. You don't understand the point of international institutions like this. No international institution can prevent states doing whatever they want because states have the armies and force is the source of all power. The landmine treaty's goal is to restrict landmines but all to the most serious wars. An lo - it worked. Despite there being numerous opportunities for the US to use landmines all over the world since the ban, they haven't. Not in Iraq, along the continously shat on routes of their patrols and convoys where US soldiers were getting IED'd, not around their bases at the popular mortar sites, nowhere. And Iraqis will be able to walk around their country without the ground under them suddenly fucking exploding, except for all the unexploded ordnance around, in a way that European farmers sometimes can't because of WW2-era minefields that are still hazardous.

Or we can talk about the missile range restriction treaty. Or we can talk about the convention on blinding lazers.

OP I assume you will be voting for Hillary?

>We should scrap the landmine ban because its a shitty idea that weakens us
Okay, so you throw it away and start using landmines again. Suddenly, so does literally every other country. As you should know, it's a lot easier to lay mines than get through them. Congratulations, you have weakened yourself by being a stuboorn arrogant retard.

>Even worse we all know the moment we find ourselves at a disadvantage because of the treaty we'll throw it away.
Which is why the strength of the international norms needs to be such that the disadvantage has to be significant to overcome the norm. You were at a disadvantage in Iraq and didn't throw it away. Same for bans on cluster munitions and missile range restrictions.

>Most of these minor international agreements are for show and convenience only.
And, you know, saving lives.

>Because the consequences for defying any agreement rarely outweigh the benefits
But you LITERALLY JUST SAID you want to scrap the ban. Which is it, you fucking moron? You shoot your own argument in the foot here.

I wish. Congress isn't going to do shit. Lazy pieces of shit.

BRING BACK THE GUILLOTINE

If you kill him you immortalize him

The CIA decides that

>And Iraqis will be able to walk around their country without the ground under them suddenly fucking exploding
Except that ISIS has mines everywhere oops.

The US can not lay landmines for humanitarian purposes if it wants, that's fine. However, I don't want to enter in binding globalist agreements/alliances. Fuck that shit. The US has the right to do whatever it wants to and if a situation arises where landmines are the logically sound tactic; we better be able to do it without any foreign bindings.

Okay the house or senate. Come on.

Yes landmines are great weapons and very useful for American expeditionary warfare where manpower is often in short supply. Do you think such a treaty would have ever been contemplated during the Cold War when we faced off against millions of sovet troops and tens of thousands of tanks? Poli Sci should have taught you about the weakness of such agreements user.

Also don't be a raging faggot with the personal attacks. I was trying to have a civilized conversation. But if you wish I can call you a worthless kike like everyone else.

>Except that ISIS has mines everywhere oops.
>murder still happens so we shouldn't bother making laws against it :D:D:D:D:D
It's like arguing with a 5th grader.

>However, I don't want to enter in binding globalist agreements/alliances
If you don't come to the international system, the international system will come to you - and you will be in a position where you have little control and less influence, because the systems were designed without you. Imagine if the US had taken no interest in forming the UN, and so had no permenant seat on the security council. Where would your country be now? Think of all the shit you couldn't have just veto'd.

>"hurr i dont care we dont need the UN fucking gubbermints"
Probably should do some reading on it before you say that, senpai. The UN isn't the be-all end-all of world politics - it's not even the starting point - but some of the shit they do occasionally matters. Especially in the complex and nuanced world of soft power.

>and if a situation arises where landmines are the logically sound tactic; we better be able to do it without any foreign bindings.
If you choose this path you give your enemies the exact same power. I hope you enjoy reaping a bitter harvest of maimed and murdered sons so that you can look tough on the internet.

testing

Why is this a surprise? This sounds exactly like something Obama would say.

IVANKAS CHEST IS GONNA WIN HIM THE ELECTION ALL ON ITS OWN IF THE CAMERA MAN KEEPS FOCUSING ON THEM.

>Quoting the opinion of someone famous
Not an argument, I share your view but literally not an argument.

Landmines are always useful goy. Chuck them in a field and nobody can go there, especially not goat herders who have no ability to clear them. The US could have secured a lot of its convoy and patrol routes in Iraq with air-dispersed landmines on the tops of overlooking ridges, but instead they kept chewing IEDs.

>Do you think such a treaty would have ever been contemplated during the Cold War
The Missile Technology Control Regime was established in April 1987, and the USSR was not a signatory. This is actually a good example of soft power - the US, by limiting itself and its allies, also managed to make other nations (like Argentina) drop their Condor II programs. The ATACMS that the US uses has a range capability way in excess of 300km stipulated by the treaty, but they just don't fill the fuel tank up all the way so it's technically legal. You see here all the facets of international conventions like this - how big nations can use them to exert influence and power, how they actually do work, and how they won't hold in a total war and everybody knows it, but also how they do hold outside of that situation. You can see how they can make a measurable, real difference. Like the landmine ban.

The Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons, Protocol IV of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, was issued in 1980.

Etc. etc. etc.

>Poli Sci should have taught you about the weakness of such agreements user.
"Doesn't work all the time" is not weakness. Everyone knows the treaties won't hold in a total war - not that it matters, because the war will be over before we even tool up the assembly lines - and they're not designed for that.

>Also don't be a raging faggot with the personal attacks.
I'll try, but shitposting is in my DNA.

I'm sitting like this right now

>giving away

The organization already largely handles everything now. Hes just ending the gov contract and letting them do their own thing.

This is exactly what non government interference looks like.