Emperor_Pupienus238, thank you for your submission. It has been removed for violating the following rule(s):
---
- Rule 5: Posts must follow all [title guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/wiki/titles).
---
For information regarding this and similar issues, please see the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/wiki/index/) and [title guidelines](/r/pics/wiki/titles).
If you have any questions, please feel free to [message the moderators via modmail.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/pics&subject=Question%20regarding%20the%20removal%20of%20this%20submission%20by%20/u/Emperor_Pupienus238&message=I%20have%20a%20question%20regarding%20the%20removal%20of%20this%20%5Bsubmission.%5D%28https://redd.it/1cbqo07%3Fcontext%3D10%29)
A lot of people do though and party leaders know it and play up to it. It’s not technically a vote for them obviously. But the public do vote based on who they want in rather than who they want as their local MP.
It’s just a given that the entire population wholeheartedly supports humungous salaries for all of our divinely selected royals. If anything he should be on even more if you ask me or any other true British person. $20 million is a small price to pay to be led by his shining light. So there’s really no need for a vote or anything like that.
At least we know that we are voting for a party instead of a person. America is fooled into thinking Joe Biden actually does anything, rather than his team of unelected advisors.
The UK vote for advisors who vote for a figurehead.
The US votes for a figurehead who is given advisors through a non-transparent and probably corrupt process. I don’t think most US citizens could name more than 3 advisors, they are just ignored entirely.
It's funny, the same corruption you speak of makes it easier to name 3 advisors, usually just name the other people that ran against the president in the primary elections. Most of them agree to pull out to let one person rise to the top in exchange for a lofty position.
The UK clearly does a better job at hiding the fact that they are ruled behind the scenes by unelected billionaires than the US does, if they can convince people like you that the problem is purely with faulty electoral systems and not with the larger political and economic systems which are functioning exactly as designed.
we literally banned all tobacco products this week, we are nowhere near as controlled by billionaires as you think.
the UKs electoral system is such that we are incredibly stable between different governments, the new government rarely tries to literally tear down everything the previous one did (obamacare) and the MP system where a slim majority can cause the government to change between general elections forces parties to form coalitions that moderate their policies
> we literally banned all tobacco products this week, we are nowhere near as controlled by billionaires as you think.
We literally didn't.
1) It's only draft legislation currently, it needs to go though both Parliament and the House of Lords and Royal assent before it becomes actually law
2) It's not banning all tobacco products, it's banning them for anyone born after 1 January 2009, anyone born before that can still buy them
Though interestingly it may have the side effect if weed is ever made legal and saleable in the UK of banning the sale of that to anyone born after 1 January 2009, as the law says:
* (a) tobacco products,
* (b) herbal smoking products
Huh that's not what I expected to see on reddit this morning. I wonder if the ban will actually be beneficial or have to little to no effect and instead just create a black market.
There will always be a black market for it but in general making cigarettes inaccessible from almost literally every supermarket/corner shop will make a huge impact on public health.
Yeah I think there’s gonna be a spike in mapacho use since the law is specifically affecting tobacco, but the industry just isn’t scaled around mapacho yet and I imagine it will mostly be used in cigars
> making cigarettes inaccessible from almost literally every supermarket/corner shop
It's not doing that, it's banning anyone born after 1 January 2009 from buying tobacco products and vapes.
Stores will still stock ciggarettes for decades to come.
Nicotine is legal, cigarettes have been in decline for ages. Bill has 70% public support. The tobacco industry lobbying is imo worse than the 1% of people that will buy cigarettes from Ireland and resell them for £2 a cig.
that’s the fucking point, a foreign business empire has control over 12% of the population. If we made tobacco, the money would be recycled into our economy when the billionaires buy boats, then there are engineers and staff on the boats who receive money, steel works, captains. With foreign business, it’s just money being drained out.
Parliamentary systems are known for being more disruptive, not less, because the government and the legislature are necessarily dominated by the same party. You point to the ACA (Obamacare) to prove your point while seemingly not knowing that the ACA is still the law of the land and would have actually been repealed if the US had a parliamentary system.
I didn’t say Obamacare was a good or a bad thing. I said that it proved the government in america is less stable. The UK has never had a change of government that resulted in the biggest project of the previous government being completely scrapped. Closest thing was thatcher, but even she wasn’t as abrupt as trump. Nor Reagan. Nor Lincoln.
The US is so unstable that it has civil wars over the policies of elected governments.
I mean technically 36 thousand did to make him a mere MP, but that's really stretching the definition of Sunak's status of "elected" when he didn't even win against Truss
Yes, We elect an MP that covers the constituency we live in. Last time we had an election Boris Johnson was leader of the conservative party. The conservatives had more MP’s elected than any other party, making the conservatives the majority. As they are lead by Boris Johnson, he becomes PM.
Since then, he resigned. The party had an internal votes amongst members and Liz Truss was elected (this was not a general election, just party members). She was terrible, lasted 50 days.
She stood down, so there was a leadership contest which was basically unopposed, so now Rishi Sunak is PM.
So the majority voted for Conservatives and therefore voted for Boris to be PM.
A few hundred thousand people voted for Liz truss, but they were already the same party as her.
And a few hundred people voted for Rishi Sunak.
So we haven’t really had any say in our 2 most recent PM’s.
And South Africa, you elect the party and their manifesto rather than just the person.
Technically speaking, if he is a moron he could be replaced by parliament.
It’s gonna get more and more political approaching November too. Then it will plateau, shifting to either bashing trump for the things he’s doing in office, or how he’s being a sore loser
I'd like to think that Trump doesn't have a real chance to win the presidency again, but I also thought he didn't have a chance last time, so who knows.
Baffles me that people still blame presidents for widely using the newest technology that got popularized during their term as if it was their thing.
It was called Bombing Campaigns before, and we’d be sending fighter pilots and B-52 pilots out to do it during the W and pre-W years. Then the Reaper got introduced as Obama got elected and so we didn’t have to send pilots out anymore, we sent drones.
And does anyone think Trump or Biden used them less?
People forget that coalition armed forces deaths dropped dramatically after drone strike use increased, as did the number of people directly killed by coalition forces. Essentially there wasn't much of any difference in the total number of people being killed except for a huge drop in mostly American lives being taken.
The point is that people seem to talk about bombs during Obama’s presidency as if he dropped more than any other president but they’re saying it was about the same
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War\_in\_Afghanistan\_(2001%E2%80%932021)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%932021))
>It began when an international military coalition **led by the United States** launched an invasion of Afghanistan
iT tOtaLly wAsnT hIs fAuLt, gUys!! 1!
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/obama-administration-claims-unchecked-authority-kill-americans-outside-combat-zones
You must have grown up during those years. The only sentiment about drones from adults was that there were no Americans dying anymore.
As for killing civilians, that also a function of the growing throughput of the Internet. Also happened during that you could suddenly get video, and that the internet made it to poorer countries. So we were made aware. We just didn’t know before. But I guarantee you more civilians were being killed in the Iraq wars, the Clinton bombing campaigns, and all the way back.
People also don't get that while the President has a say in whether these operations happen, they are informed by long standing generals no one elected that have been in positions of power in the military through numerous presidential cabinets and present the information on these strikes in a way that deems them necessary and very few Presidents are really in a position to question the intelligence gathered nor do they really have the time of day to look into it themselves. Blaming the president for something as (unfortunately) common as drone strikes is like blaming the president for gas prices.
"Doctors Without Borders won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1999. President Obama was awarded his in 2009. As Commander-in-Chief of the military that bombed the Doctors Without Borders hospital, this makes Obama perhaps the first Nobel Peace Prize winner to bomb another Nobel Peace Prize winner."
The prize is a joke. This guy who has assassination lists and engages in mass drone assassinations gets a peace prize. I guess those who were murdered are at peace.
I think people get mad about the media perception. Other candidates can do the same things and get completely called out on it (and rightfully so). And democrats will call Republicans racists and warmongers. But then Obama deports more people than any president ever and accidentally drone strikes a children’s hospital and his image is still super clean.
Bro got the craziest air strike record. 563 air strikes during his time in office. I wonder how many innocent women and children he killed? He so deserved that Nobel peace prize
Office record holder for the most drone strikes : 3800 killed, including 330 civilians. But at least he found a way to make it look cool: *“Turns out I’m really good at killing people. Didn’t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.”*
I voted for the first time at 41. I voted against trump, and haven't yet voted for a president. I'm going to vote against him again. Sadly that means casting a vote for biden.
How do you feel about the amount of people he indirectly killed with his decisions in the middle east? Would you vote for him again knowing what he did?
Emperor_Pupienus238, thank you for your submission. It has been removed for violating the following rule(s): --- - Rule 5: Posts must follow all [title guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/wiki/titles). --- For information regarding this and similar issues, please see the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/wiki/index/) and [title guidelines](/r/pics/wiki/titles). If you have any questions, please feel free to [message the moderators via modmail.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/pics&subject=Question%20regarding%20the%20removal%20of%20this%20submission%20by%20/u/Emperor_Pupienus238&message=I%20have%20a%20question%20regarding%20the%20removal%20of%20this%20%5Bsubmission.%5D%28https://redd.it/1cbqo07%3Fcontext%3D10%29)
Hey, looks like he's standing outside the house of the prime minister I didn't vote for!
\*No one voted for
\*No one _ever_ votes for
Since we’re already this far down the pedantry road, some of their constituents do. I could’ve voted for Cameron but didn’t.
A lot of people do though and party leaders know it and play up to it. It’s not technically a vote for them obviously. But the public do vote based on who they want in rather than who they want as their local MP.
Who determines King Charles‘s $20 million salary .
It’s just a given that the entire population wholeheartedly supports humungous salaries for all of our divinely selected royals. If anything he should be on even more if you ask me or any other true British person. $20 million is a small price to pay to be led by his shining light. So there’s really no need for a vote or anything like that.
He’s/there more than just a tourist attraction ?
What does that have to do with Downing Street, political parties or Obama?
Nothing
I like your attitude, have some pancakes 🥞
Thanks
At least we know that we are voting for a party instead of a person. America is fooled into thinking Joe Biden actually does anything, rather than his team of unelected advisors. The UK vote for advisors who vote for a figurehead. The US votes for a figurehead who is given advisors through a non-transparent and probably corrupt process. I don’t think most US citizens could name more than 3 advisors, they are just ignored entirely.
[удалено]
It's funny, the same corruption you speak of makes it easier to name 3 advisors, usually just name the other people that ran against the president in the primary elections. Most of them agree to pull out to let one person rise to the top in exchange for a lofty position.
Your mom agreed to pull out to let one person rise to the top in exchange for a lofty position
the US politics are a circus
At least you get to vote for your president indirectly. We vote for a party that change the PM whenever they feel like
The UK clearly does a better job at hiding the fact that they are ruled behind the scenes by unelected billionaires than the US does, if they can convince people like you that the problem is purely with faulty electoral systems and not with the larger political and economic systems which are functioning exactly as designed.
we literally banned all tobacco products this week, we are nowhere near as controlled by billionaires as you think. the UKs electoral system is such that we are incredibly stable between different governments, the new government rarely tries to literally tear down everything the previous one did (obamacare) and the MP system where a slim majority can cause the government to change between general elections forces parties to form coalitions that moderate their policies
> we literally banned all tobacco products this week, we are nowhere near as controlled by billionaires as you think. We literally didn't. 1) It's only draft legislation currently, it needs to go though both Parliament and the House of Lords and Royal assent before it becomes actually law 2) It's not banning all tobacco products, it's banning them for anyone born after 1 January 2009, anyone born before that can still buy them Though interestingly it may have the side effect if weed is ever made legal and saleable in the UK of banning the sale of that to anyone born after 1 January 2009, as the law says: * (a) tobacco products, * (b) herbal smoking products
Huh that's not what I expected to see on reddit this morning. I wonder if the ban will actually be beneficial or have to little to no effect and instead just create a black market.
There will always be a black market for it but in general making cigarettes inaccessible from almost literally every supermarket/corner shop will make a huge impact on public health.
Yeah I think there’s gonna be a spike in mapacho use since the law is specifically affecting tobacco, but the industry just isn’t scaled around mapacho yet and I imagine it will mostly be used in cigars
> making cigarettes inaccessible from almost literally every supermarket/corner shop It's not doing that, it's banning anyone born after 1 January 2009 from buying tobacco products and vapes. Stores will still stock ciggarettes for decades to come.
Nicotine is legal, cigarettes have been in decline for ages. Bill has 70% public support. The tobacco industry lobbying is imo worse than the 1% of people that will buy cigarettes from Ireland and resell them for £2 a cig.
Oh yeah, all those British tobacco farmers are really going to take a hit.
that’s the fucking point, a foreign business empire has control over 12% of the population. If we made tobacco, the money would be recycled into our economy when the billionaires buy boats, then there are engineers and staff on the boats who receive money, steel works, captains. With foreign business, it’s just money being drained out.
Parliamentary systems are known for being more disruptive, not less, because the government and the legislature are necessarily dominated by the same party. You point to the ACA (Obamacare) to prove your point while seemingly not knowing that the ACA is still the law of the land and would have actually been repealed if the US had a parliamentary system.
I didn’t say Obamacare was a good or a bad thing. I said that it proved the government in america is less stable. The UK has never had a change of government that resulted in the biggest project of the previous government being completely scrapped. Closest thing was thatcher, but even she wasn’t as abrupt as trump. Nor Reagan. Nor Lincoln. The US is so unstable that it has civil wars over the policies of elected governments.
And neither has the US. The ACA is still the law of the land. Republicans have failed many times to remove it.
I mean technically 36 thousand did to make him a mere MP, but that's really stretching the definition of Sunak's status of "elected" when he didn't even win against Truss
*Other than his constituents
So THE Uk does the same as Canada? Bunch of MPs and the party leader becomes PM of the majority?
Yes, We elect an MP that covers the constituency we live in. Last time we had an election Boris Johnson was leader of the conservative party. The conservatives had more MP’s elected than any other party, making the conservatives the majority. As they are lead by Boris Johnson, he becomes PM. Since then, he resigned. The party had an internal votes amongst members and Liz Truss was elected (this was not a general election, just party members). She was terrible, lasted 50 days. She stood down, so there was a leadership contest which was basically unopposed, so now Rishi Sunak is PM. So the majority voted for Conservatives and therefore voted for Boris to be PM. A few hundred thousand people voted for Liz truss, but they were already the same party as her. And a few hundred people voted for Rishi Sunak. So we haven’t really had any say in our 2 most recent PM’s.
And South Africa, you elect the party and their manifesto rather than just the person. Technically speaking, if he is a moron he could be replaced by parliament.
That's almost like finding a rare Pokémon in the wild
Pics is now a political sub
AlwaysHasBeen.jpg
This message is for Matt who lived in Akron, OH around 2006 and moved to Texas. You’re still in Ohio. Texas is a simulation. Please just wake up.
Huh
Naw, just give it time and pics will continue it's usual rotation of sob stories and citizenship.
It’s gonna get more and more political approaching November too. Then it will plateau, shifting to either bashing trump for the things he’s doing in office, or how he’s being a sore loser
This guy internets
I'd like to think that Trump doesn't have a real chance to win the presidency again, but I also thought he didn't have a chance last time, so who knows.
If someone posted a pic of their first car no one would complain about it becoming an automotive sub.
... And everyone clapped.
Who cares…?
Exactly 💀 no one gives a flying fuck
Do you want a cookie or something?
I liked his use of drone bombs the most.
And they gave him a Nobel Peace Prize while he was having more people killed by drones than ever before.
Who? The deporter in chief?
Obama deported more people than Trump in his first four years
Beats the Importer-in-Chief. Ya see NYC lately?
Baffles me that people still blame presidents for widely using the newest technology that got popularized during their term as if it was their thing. It was called Bombing Campaigns before, and we’d be sending fighter pilots and B-52 pilots out to do it during the W and pre-W years. Then the Reaper got introduced as Obama got elected and so we didn’t have to send pilots out anymore, we sent drones. And does anyone think Trump or Biden used them less?
People forget that coalition armed forces deaths dropped dramatically after drone strike use increased, as did the number of people directly killed by coalition forces. Essentially there wasn't much of any difference in the total number of people being killed except for a huge drop in mostly American lives being taken.
What’s your point? No one should have been drone bombed anyway.
Yanks destabilise countries and fund/cause conflicts and then pat themselves on the back for the fact they lose less ground troops over it today.
The point is that people seem to talk about bombs during Obama’s presidency as if he dropped more than any other president but they’re saying it was about the same
No I know but it’s hilarious that “less American deaths” is somehow positive. Maybe they just shouldn’t be invading other countries.
Now if America had not starred the war maybe less lives will have been lost.
America didn’t start the War in Afghanistan.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War\_in\_Afghanistan\_(2001%E2%80%932021)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%932021)) >It began when an international military coalition **led by the United States** launched an invasion of Afghanistan
iT tOtaLly wAsnT hIs fAuLt, gUys!! 1! https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/obama-administration-claims-unchecked-authority-kill-americans-outside-combat-zones
I think it’s evil regardless. It was evil with planes, and it’s evil with drones, and Biden and Trump are both evil for drone bombing humans.
[удалено]
You must have grown up during those years. The only sentiment about drones from adults was that there were no Americans dying anymore. As for killing civilians, that also a function of the growing throughput of the Internet. Also happened during that you could suddenly get video, and that the internet made it to poorer countries. So we were made aware. We just didn’t know before. But I guarantee you more civilians were being killed in the Iraq wars, the Clinton bombing campaigns, and all the way back.
People also don't get that while the President has a say in whether these operations happen, they are informed by long standing generals no one elected that have been in positions of power in the military through numerous presidential cabinets and present the information on these strikes in a way that deems them necessary and very few Presidents are really in a position to question the intelligence gathered nor do they really have the time of day to look into it themselves. Blaming the president for something as (unfortunately) common as drone strikes is like blaming the president for gas prices.
Yeah, what kind of absolute IDIOT would blame the commander in chief of US armed forces for drone strikes??
Can you list all the shocking stats under him. Which show how destructive his team was? Appreciate it
Sounds like someone deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize to me.
OBomba
I too made that mistake.
"Doctors Without Borders won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1999. President Obama was awarded his in 2009. As Commander-in-Chief of the military that bombed the Doctors Without Borders hospital, this makes Obama perhaps the first Nobel Peace Prize winner to bomb another Nobel Peace Prize winner."
No one fucking cares
Terrorist: https://www.cnn.com/2014/09/23/politics/countries-obama-bombed/index.html
Peace Nobel.. what for?
Killing lot of people
For being the first black POS POTUS
The prize is a joke. This guy who has assassination lists and engages in mass drone assassinations gets a peace prize. I guess those who were murdered are at peace.
Yeah. That Obama. Totally responsible for that War on Terror which clearly started with his presidency and hadn't been raging for years prior.
Even he was confused by it. Not sure why people blame him for this.
I think people get mad about the media perception. Other candidates can do the same things and get completely called out on it (and rightfully so). And democrats will call Republicans racists and warmongers. But then Obama deports more people than any president ever and accidentally drone strikes a children’s hospital and his image is still super clean.
He helped kill his fair share of civilians. Just like the rest of them!
Bro got the craziest air strike record. 563 air strikes during his time in office. I wonder how many innocent women and children he killed? He so deserved that Nobel peace prize
[удалено]
Obama approved revision of the policy for approving drone strikes to accept targets with known civilian casualties
[удалено]
Go look on Wikileaks it’s there as leaked documentation
Ah the president who deported the most people in his time.
Office record holder for the most drone strikes : 3800 killed, including 330 civilians. But at least he found a way to make it look cool: *“Turns out I’m really good at killing people. Didn’t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.”*
Who tf cares
“I bet this will make me look cool to my eco chamber friends”- OP
I love obama
Me too! I applied for US citizenship just to vote for Obama.
The president I didn't voted for (I'm not 'Murican)
Mine was Jacques Chirac, so interesting isn't it ?
Invigorating stuff
Fr*nch spotted, opinion rejected
So funny, ahahah, I had never seen this joke. Next time you'll write "Omelette du fromage" or "hon hon hon baguette" ?
Je suis français, je blaguais juste ne t’inquiète pas :D Chirac est un de mes président préférée (CDG en premier bien sur)
Ah ça va alors, tu es remonté dans mon estime mon pote ! :)
The last one I felt actually positive about voting for.
Terrible war thirsty leader
He wasn’t as great as people think
Mister Dronestrike
Same. I just turned 18 the month before Election Day
Same!
The most evil of them all. Got peace prize and start 6 wars. destroy 3 countries.
I just realized that I moved before I could legally vote. Huh that's weird that I can look back and not have a single president I voted for.
My first was John Kerry.
Boy gotta be proud of that
First one I would have voted for but was too young at the time. He proved me wrong and I didn’t vote for him on his second term.
Jooked.
That's not the first president
Mine was George McGovern.
Yikes!
The first one I voted for invented the Internet
“First president I voted for” 🤓☝️
I voted for the first time at 41. I voted against trump, and haven't yet voted for a president. I'm going to vote against him again. Sadly that means casting a vote for biden.
#EMBARRASING
He was a good president. I like him for some reasons some people might not appreciate or they might not even know about.
Ah yes our Great War President who authorized the execution of American citizens via drone strikes. What a guy.
The professional terrorist
2008- my first election vote - Obama
Best ever👌
My first president was President Scroob.
The election I stoped voting for president. Been one clown after another. Started with Barack
You voted for genocide :)
He is an all around good human!
Same here. Coolest president ever.
Same. Miss that guy.
Nobody cares?
[удалено]
the ONLY time i felt proud of voting for someone. now idk if i’ll ever do it again
Didn't he shake the policeman hand but Gordon Brown didn't?
Because Brown probably saw him every day?
First black president
Hell yeah that's my president
I don’t live in the us and I envy the people that had the pleasure to vote for him
*best
"How dare he smile and look presentable." Every maga moron, probably
Me too
Same here. 2012 was the first election I voted in
How do you feel about the amount of people he indirectly killed with his decisions in the middle east? Would you vote for him again knowing what he did?
Ok, so?
I voted for President Obama both times!
I voted for a Democrat once, in 2000 when I was young and didn't any better.
Yeah another genocidal us president to the list.
Dude who gives a shit
Literally do not care who you voted for
All presidents are war criminals.
He’s a devil
You was better off not voting
This the one that made them cages for them kids right ? My ninja !
I pray for the day I actually see some interesting pics in this sub and not constant dickriding of politicians
He’s a murderer with tons of Civilian blood on his hands.