He fucked us over more than any other president in history. Worse than both Bush administrations. More of us died because of him than anyone, the dude single-handedly brought back slavery and essentially repealed habeas corpus.
He has enabled the war between Ukraine and Russia, which caused the loss of tens of thousands of lifes, annexation of crimea and occupation of Eastern Ukraine. He did not enforce Budapest memorandum.
He, as a key foreign policy contributor, failed to stop Russia's war on Georgia
And bombing U.S father and son in a foreign country. Let alone doesn't he hold the record for the most bomb strikes over foreign land for any president? Correct me if im wrong, swear ive seen a graph that showed bombings during a presidents term(s) and he was #1 im pretty sure.
Dont forget operation fast and furious where they sold a ton of guns to i believe mexico, and alot of those guns ended up in ISIS hands. Also.. no more ISIS under Tump..or they're just too small to do anything and make news.
ISIS went away because the military actually got authorization to start fighting them instead of following bogus orders to dump phosphorus on empty buildings while ragheads sack a town 10 miles down the road.
The literal father of the "Refugee Crisis" that permanently changed the demographic makeup of all western nations, all for control of a pipeline that would have made all the swamp filthy stinking rich... if Trump hadn't been elected.
A pipeline that would have been operated through Ukrainian energy companies...
No offense but the shuttle was a fucking waste of money. SpaceX is doing a much better job at a much lower price. Privatization for the win. NASA was suffering from decades of bloat and bureaucratic creep.
No it hasn't and no it won't. This attitude is only shared by people who think air warfare is settled in spectacular Hollywood dogfights... and also are probably the same people who think the A-10 is good because of BRRRRRT memes.
Avionics are what separates the men from the boys, and the F-35 can already give the F-22 a run for its money, and no adversary on the planet is even remotely close to matching even our 4.5 gen airpower capes, so what goddamn good is the F-22, when the F-35 is still miles beyond the absolute best that China can even come up with?
The F-22 compared to the F-35, on paper, is like a 10% increase in overall performance and you're trading 95% of combat capabilities for it. The fucking thing can't even utilize laser-guided PGMs or datalink with joint forces.
The F-22 was excellent as a testbed for F-35 technology, but it's a dinosaur that was obsolete a decade before it even stood up its first squadron. That technology gap is actually specifically why the F-35 was designed the way it was, where they were building airframes before the software was even finished.
I think you are a bit incorrect here. F-35 cannot replace the F-22. F-22 as a solely air supremacy fighter is the top boss in air to air combat, long range through short range. Its bigger, thus having more range, is faster enabling for quicker response and intercept + high speed supercruise. Altitude ceiling is also important as its critical for AIM-120 flight envelope and obviously less dense air means less drag and that means more range. It also houses a big ass radar thats approx 30% more powerful than the one in the F-35. Only thing it lacks is IRST, DAS and full link-16 capability which will be delivered soon in increment 3.2b.
I'm probably more knowledgeable than nearly all other people here on the subject, and I actually agree on the F-22 production termination. The aircraft was capable for what it was built to do, but unfortunately it was built with the mindset of "purpose-made" fighters which is an obsolete concept.
It's similar to how tank design used to go. We used to have all kinds of tanks in service at one time. Light tanks, Medium tanks, Cavalry tanks, etc. But the nature of technology found fit that we design a tank that can fill all roles in a capable fashion. Nobody doubts that the Abrams is capable. Yes, there's faster tanks. There's better-armored tanks. There's tanks with more firepower. But the Abrams is basically #2 in every regard, which is better than being #1 in only one regard and #4 and #5 in others. A flexible weapon is better than a purpose-made weapon 99% of the time, because it can change and adapt to different missions.
The F-22 was a single-purpose fighter and it's had some considerable problems and been a drain on the budget as a result. Additionally, the technology in the F-35 heavily obsoletes the F-22, particularly in regards to maintainability, particularly in regards to the LO material used on the F-22.
This is actually the same reason I also agree that the A-10 is terrible. The A-10 is actually worse than the F-22 in terms of limitations, because while the F-22 would still whoop the shit out of the best that OPFOR could throw at us, the A-10 couldn't even engage in combat ops against the incredibly obsolete Iraqi military without sustaining staggering attrition.
Not many people know this, but the A-10 was actually obsolete in its original mission before it even rolled off the production line. The GAU-8 was designed to penetrate the top armor of the T-55 tank, which was the mainstay of the Red Army. However, by the time the A-10 hit the skies, the T-55 was on its way out, and in its place, the T-62 (and to some degree, the T-64, and although it was one of the best tanks ever made, was too expensive for widespread fielding) was built, with substantially more top armor. This meant the A-10 had to get much closer to penetrate the armor.
However, the Soviets also had invested heavily in SPAAGs, MANPADs, and mobile SAM units like the ZSU-23-4, Igla, and 9K33. In short, the A-10 was going to be blasted to fucking smithereens, as it was slow and almost completely defenseless against any kind of anti-aircraft threat.
Improvements in missile technology like the AGM-65D took the focus off the GAU-8 and invested it into standoff weapons, but at that point, what the fuck did you need an A-10 for, when you could slap Mavs on even F-15s and F-16s? AGM-114s on an AH-64 would have served similarly, with the added benefit that AH-64s were much cheaper, had a radar system so they could operate in inclement weather (A-10 has no radar or SAR capes), and could operate much closer from dirt fields.
The Space Shuttle was in the same boat. It was an absolutely incredible piece of engineering and design and was a tremendous symbol for American exceptionalism, but ultimately it was one big shitshow top to bottom.
Smug, traitor and shemale....loyal to Islam....and himself....
Muslim here:
He fucked us over more than any other president in history. Worse than both Bush administrations. More of us died because of him than anyone, the dude single-handedly brought back slavery and essentially repealed habeas corpus.
Fuck Obama. Trump 2020.
And gave away control of the internet to globalist foreign powers.
Continue the list:
He has enabled the war between Ukraine and Russia, which caused the loss of tens of thousands of lifes, annexation of crimea and occupation of Eastern Ukraine. He did not enforce Budapest memorandum.
He, as a key foreign policy contributor, failed to stop Russia's war on Georgia
Benghazi
Iran deal and cash paid to Iran
And bombing U.S father and son in a foreign country. Let alone doesn't he hold the record for the most bomb strikes over foreign land for any president? Correct me if im wrong, swear ive seen a graph that showed bombings during a presidents term(s) and he was #1 im pretty sure.
Dont forget operation fast and furious where they sold a ton of guns to i believe mexico, and alot of those guns ended up in ISIS hands. Also.. no more ISIS under Tump..or they're just too small to do anything and make news.
Also did a drone strike on a wedding
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/wedding-became-funeral-us-still-silent-one-year-deadly-yemen-drone-strike-291403%3famp=1
The purpose of the guns to erode our 2nd ammendment.
The list continues....
ISIS went away because the military actually got authorization to start fighting them instead of following bogus orders to dump phosphorus on empty buildings while ragheads sack a town 10 miles down the road.
Dont forget the production value ISIS assasinations, horrible to watch. Funding came from us
Dont forget all the toyotas and nikes ISIS had, corporate shill and a pussy
That's a good point, they had brand new Toyota's out of no whers...
The literal father of the "Refugee Crisis" that permanently changed the demographic makeup of all western nations, all for control of a pipeline that would have made all the swamp filthy stinking rich... if Trump hadn't been elected.
A pipeline that would have been operated through Ukrainian energy companies...
Big Mike mad cause Barry don't wanna dance.
I still want a screenshot of obuma and big mike before Mike portrayed himself as a woman
Commie doing Commie
The real Treason was done by the people in Govt. agencies who placed this man into power.
and he wasn't eligible to be president, it was another fraud they committed
No offense but the shuttle was a fucking waste of money. SpaceX is doing a much better job at a much lower price. Privatization for the win. NASA was suffering from decades of bloat and bureaucratic creep.
We also gave Alaskan islands to Russia.
(We relinquished claims on disputed islands -> oil, naturally.)
That F-22 cut has been hurting and will hurt for a decade to come.
Already dated tech.
No it hasn't and no it won't. This attitude is only shared by people who think air warfare is settled in spectacular Hollywood dogfights... and also are probably the same people who think the A-10 is good because of BRRRRRT memes.
Avionics are what separates the men from the boys, and the F-35 can already give the F-22 a run for its money, and no adversary on the planet is even remotely close to matching even our 4.5 gen airpower capes, so what goddamn good is the F-22, when the F-35 is still miles beyond the absolute best that China can even come up with?
The F-22 compared to the F-35, on paper, is like a 10% increase in overall performance and you're trading 95% of combat capabilities for it. The fucking thing can't even utilize laser-guided PGMs or datalink with joint forces.
The F-22 was excellent as a testbed for F-35 technology, but it's a dinosaur that was obsolete a decade before it even stood up its first squadron. That technology gap is actually specifically why the F-35 was designed the way it was, where they were building airframes before the software was even finished.
I think you are a bit incorrect here. F-35 cannot replace the F-22. F-22 as a solely air supremacy fighter is the top boss in air to air combat, long range through short range. Its bigger, thus having more range, is faster enabling for quicker response and intercept + high speed supercruise. Altitude ceiling is also important as its critical for AIM-120 flight envelope and obviously less dense air means less drag and that means more range. It also houses a big ass radar thats approx 30% more powerful than the one in the F-35. Only thing it lacks is IRST, DAS and full link-16 capability which will be delivered soon in increment 3.2b.
Oh hey, there’s Mike.
Scandal free Presidency. btw, Is he flipping off Michel?
Was that before Michael transitioned? Jeeezz
Who's the guy with the extra chromosome sitting next to Obama?
Which one ... the guy on left or the guy on the right?
I'm probably more knowledgeable than nearly all other people here on the subject, and I actually agree on the F-22 production termination. The aircraft was capable for what it was built to do, but unfortunately it was built with the mindset of "purpose-made" fighters which is an obsolete concept.
It's similar to how tank design used to go. We used to have all kinds of tanks in service at one time. Light tanks, Medium tanks, Cavalry tanks, etc. But the nature of technology found fit that we design a tank that can fill all roles in a capable fashion. Nobody doubts that the Abrams is capable. Yes, there's faster tanks. There's better-armored tanks. There's tanks with more firepower. But the Abrams is basically #2 in every regard, which is better than being #1 in only one regard and #4 and #5 in others. A flexible weapon is better than a purpose-made weapon 99% of the time, because it can change and adapt to different missions.
The F-22 was a single-purpose fighter and it's had some considerable problems and been a drain on the budget as a result. Additionally, the technology in the F-35 heavily obsoletes the F-22, particularly in regards to maintainability, particularly in regards to the LO material used on the F-22.
This is actually the same reason I also agree that the A-10 is terrible. The A-10 is actually worse than the F-22 in terms of limitations, because while the F-22 would still whoop the shit out of the best that OPFOR could throw at us, the A-10 couldn't even engage in combat ops against the incredibly obsolete Iraqi military without sustaining staggering attrition.
Not many people know this, but the A-10 was actually obsolete in its original mission before it even rolled off the production line. The GAU-8 was designed to penetrate the top armor of the T-55 tank, which was the mainstay of the Red Army. However, by the time the A-10 hit the skies, the T-55 was on its way out, and in its place, the T-62 (and to some degree, the T-64, and although it was one of the best tanks ever made, was too expensive for widespread fielding) was built, with substantially more top armor. This meant the A-10 had to get much closer to penetrate the armor.
However, the Soviets also had invested heavily in SPAAGs, MANPADs, and mobile SAM units like the ZSU-23-4, Igla, and 9K33. In short, the A-10 was going to be blasted to fucking smithereens, as it was slow and almost completely defenseless against any kind of anti-aircraft threat.
Improvements in missile technology like the AGM-65D took the focus off the GAU-8 and invested it into standoff weapons, but at that point, what the fuck did you need an A-10 for, when you could slap Mavs on even F-15s and F-16s? AGM-114s on an AH-64 would have served similarly, with the added benefit that AH-64s were much cheaper, had a radar system so they could operate in inclement weather (A-10 has no radar or SAR capes), and could operate much closer from dirt fields.
The Space Shuttle was in the same boat. It was an absolutely incredible piece of engineering and design and was a tremendous symbol for American exceptionalism, but ultimately it was one big shitshow top to bottom.
Shoulders for dayssss. Hurk!!
THE DUDE FUNDED ISIS!!! HELLO?!?!
Why do you think Michelle is having a "low-key depression" ?
I see a mustache on big mike.
Don't forget he sat as the head of the UN security council.
The space shuttle was a disaster that should never have been. You're right about everything else.
I remember the Purge!!
He probably should have sacked those military commanders, military is top heavy right now...the rest of the stuff Obama bin Laden should be hung for
The issue is that he was picking them not based on "Do we need this", but "Will you bend the knee completely to the Left?"
Pile of senior NCO's went too.
SNCOs cycle through incredibly fast. It's the Generals who hang around for 45 years.
The "Nearly brass" levels of NCO aren't 4-year guys. And they're precisely the guys that set a lot of the internal "tone" of the military.
I do agree with the "We're freaking top heavy!" The point to focus on is who is getting the axe. And who isn't.
Obama fired those commanders and systematically replaced them with people selected solely on the criteria that they would swear loyalty to Obama.
Ah, well thought even a broken clock is right twice a day, not the case with Obama bin Laden
*gave cash to Iran to fund their nuclear program.
Dumpy and frumpy.
There is no way you can convince me Big Mike isn't a man.
How deep and wide is the swamp?
🎶 how long 🎼 has this been 🎵 going on?
michelle obama is a man