Pfft, the governement estimates even under the Obama regime were shady as ■■■■. The idea was “if you got hit by a drone strike, you were probably close enough to get hit by a terrorist, so you were probably a terrorist too”, and even then? No hard numbers.
The main difference I see here, is that Obama didn’t overtly target any members of state, no matter how ■■■■■■ they were because he, and most sane people knew, how bad that would look or turn out, it didn’t matter. Which is horribly ■■■■■■. Especially of me. We shouldn’t look at things in terms like that but… well, as long as we don’t have boots in the ground in danger, it’s a politically advantagous strategy. That’s the point of drones.
The difference is when we use it on a foreign head of state that we know is an ■■■■■■■ because he’s in a “not quite, but almost war zone” we’ve made because of our ■■■■■■ executive rules.
■■■■ I’ll call in @MickityMike here, cause its never something someone should be able to dial in in the night.
It’s crazytown.
But we’re all citizens. So let’s pretend the centrists want power back in congress and not with the executive so they can disavow any hard decision and everything will be fine.
