"The Punisher" Duterte calls Obama a 'son of a whore'

[Rozalia]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/05/philippines-president-rodrigo-duterte-barack-obama-son-whore

 

Duterte for those who don't know is a man so fearsome that on being elected several thousands of drug dealers and junkies all surrendered to him vowing to lead a new life from now on (http://www.elitereaders.com/thousands-drug-dealers-addicts-peddlers-surrender-scared-badass-philippine-president-rodrigo-duterte/). Forget just the matters of leadership, but he even knows how to fight a drug war better than Obama whose own efforts have been completely hopeless.

 

Politically he needs to be close to the US due to China but thats the thing about strongmen, they just don't give a crap and people love them for it. That and Obama is on his way out anyway and someone who utterly despises Obama is replacing him.

[Eric]

Hillary Clinton? I thought she liked Obama...

 

Lol jk I know who you're referring to. Interesting article.

Edited September 6, 2016 by Eric

[Floating Hippo]

Didn't know Hillary despises Obama. 

[Kemal Ergenekon]

So if Trump were president, he would call him 'husband of a whore.' How's that different? xdxd

[Eric]

Didn't know Hillary despises Obama. 

Great minds think alike?

[Guinevere]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/05/philippines-president-rodrigo-duterte-barack-obama-son-whore

 

Duterte for those who don't know is a man so fearsome that on being elected several thousands of drug dealers and junkies all surrendered to him vowing to lead a new life from now on (http://www.elitereaders.com/thousands-drug-dealers-addicts-peddlers-surrender-scared-badass-philippine-president-rodrigo-duterte/). Forget just the matters of leadership, but he even knows how to fight a drug war better than Obama whose own efforts have been completely hopeless.

 

Politically he needs to be close to the US due to China but thats the thing about strongmen, they just don't give a crap and people love them for it. That and Obama is on his way out anyway and someone who utterly despises Obama is replacing him.

[Juan Julio Montague]

Duterte for those who don't know is a man so fearsome that on being elected several thousands of drug dealers and junkies all surrendered to him vowing to lead a new life from now on (http://www.elitereaders.com/thousands-drug-dealers-addicts-peddlers-surrender-scared-badass-philippine-president-rodrigo-duterte/). Forget just the matters of leadership, but he even knows how to fight a drug war better than Obama whose own efforts have been completely hopeless..

I mean according to https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/nationwide-trends the current "war on drugs" in the US hasn't been completely useless with drug use outside of marijuana actually decreasing, so using the term completely hopeless is incredibly misleading. You could argue that it was largely due to something Bush did since some decline began in 2007, but even then the fact that it has continued since then is impressive. Either way the president of the Philippines enactment of vigilante justice to kill drug dealers and addicts should be terrifying, not something to be congratulated.

Edited September 6, 2016 by Juan Julio Montague

[Rozalia]

So if Trump were president, he would call him 'husband of a whore.' How's that different? xdxd

 

When he took issue with Trump he challenged him to a fistfight apparently.

 

I mean according to https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/nationwide-trends the current "war on drugs" in the US hasn't been completely useless with drug use outside of marijuana actually decreasing, so using the term completely hopeless is incredibly misleading. You could argue that it was largely due to something Bush did since some decline began in 2007, but even then the fact that it has continued since then is impressive. Either way the president of the Philippines enactment of vigilante justice to kill drug dealers and addicts should be terrifying, not something to be congratulated.

 

I'm not a fan of drug laws myself just to preface. However Duterte's efforts seem easily to be more effective. 

Edited September 6, 2016 by Rozalia

[Juan Julio Montague]

 

I'm not a fan of drug laws myself just to preface. However Duterte's efforts seem easily to be more effective. 

It seems to be working out as a short term strategy, but until more time has passed we can't really foresee how this will affect drug crime on a nation wide scale. Now if we want to argue a more effective model of fighting a drug war, Portugal's method of outright decriminalization ttps://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/DPA_Fact_Sheet_Portugal_Decriminalization_Feb2015.pdf seems to be one the more effective methods of dealing with the "war on drugs". My point is that while his method is working, there are so many better ways of dealing with the war on drugs that his enactment seems less a way of dealing with drugs, but more a way of controlling the people through fear of being accused.

[Rozalia]

It seems to be working out as a short term strategy, but until more time has passed we can't really foresee how this will affect drug crime on a nation wide scale. Now if we want to argue a more effective model of fighting a drug war, Portugal's method of outright decriminalization ttps://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/DPA_Fact_Sheet_Portugal_Decriminalization_Feb2015.pdf seems to be one the more effective methods of dealing with the "war on drugs". My point is that while his method is working, there are so many better ways of dealing with the war on drugs that his enactment seems less a way of dealing with drugs, but more a way of controlling the people through fear of being accused.

 

All countries have their own path to follow and Duterte is popular and his methods liked. There are opponents of it of course but thats natural with anything. What works in one place won't necessarily work in another so while Decriminalization in the west would work well (I am a supporter of such a thing) but in a place like Philippines I'm not so sure.

Edited September 6, 2016 by Rozalia

[Juan Julio Montague]

All countries have their own path to follow and Duterte is popular and his methods liked. There are opponents of it of course but thats natural with anything. What works in one place won't necessarily work in another so while Decriminalization in the west would work well (I am a support of such a thing) but in a place like Philippines I'm not so sure.

I guess we will just have to find out as time moves on how truly effective his methods are. If the statistics in the coming years support it, then I will accept that.

[Peter Quill]

All countries have their own path to follow and Duterte is popular and his methods liked. There are opponents of it of course but thats natural with anything. What works in one place won't necessarily work in another so while Decriminalization in the west would work well (I am a supporter of such a thing) but in a place like Philippines I'm not so sure.

As someone who lives in the Philippines, I can tell you that decriminalisation won't work, at least not in the next 3-6 years or so, because people here have zero discipline. Give them something, and they abuse the !@#$ out of it.

 

 

As for Duterte, although I support him, I don't really like what's happening RE: vigilantism and his swearing against powerful world leaders.

[Franz Von Dietrich]

regardless on feelings; it's working

yeah, because summary executions are somehow justified.

 

is the hardline approach okay? yeah, however, has society really degraded to the point where we kill drug addicts who are motivated by urge not by will to intake in the usage of drugs? yeah maybe kill the drug lords after giving them a trial. but honestly, drug addicts? 

 

ironic how this "president" has to use paramilitary vigilantes to do his dirty work after inciting the civilian populace to kill drug addicts without any remorse.

 

to reiterate, the hardline approach to drug lords and their cliche is okay, but summary executions of suspected drug addicts is a step too far

Edited September 6, 2016 by Uncle Jack

[Rozalia]

yeah, because summary executions are somehow justified.

 

is the hardline approach okay? yeah, however, has society really degraded to the point where we kill drug addicts who are motivated by urge not by will to intake in the usage of drugs? yeah maybe kill the drug lords after giving them a trial. but honestly, drug addicts? 

 

ironic how this "president" has to use paramilitary vigilantes to do his dirty work after inciting the civilian populace to kill drug addicts without any remorse.

 

to reiterate, the hardline approach to drug lords and their cliche is okay, but summary executions of suspected drug addicts is a step too far

 

You say degradation, but he'd tell you that society was degraded and he is now fixing it. It's all relative. 

 

Extreme issues sometimes require extreme solutions. He has put the fear in the users who now have a serious consequence beyond just possible health issues above their heads. Many have sworn off drugs already and his policy is hardly going to create more drug users. Less drug users ultimately means the drug barons have less power.

[Franz Von Dietrich]

You say degradation, but he'd tell you that society was degraded and he is now fixing it. It's all relative. 

 

Extreme issues sometimes require extreme solutions. He has put the fear in the users who now have a serious consequence beyond just possible health issues above their heads. Many have sworn off drugs already and his policy is hardly going to create more drug users. Less drug users ultimately means the drug barons have less power.

"sometimes" radical change doesn't have to include the usage of death squads on drug addicts. a simple "i swear to never to do drugs again" is hardly going to stop a drug addict from overcoming his urge to intake drugs. rehabilitation programs for drug addicts would be ideal, large amount of time in a prison for the drug lords (even death if sentenced so) and their associates. also when is he going to crack down on the oligarchs and general corrupt government, we don't need another marcos. also  note how i never stated "this policy is bad", but i did point out one flaw. summary executions aren't warranted, especially once they're detained.

 

I neither justified it or denounced it. I only stated an observable fact; that there have been results.

yeah and i commented on how killing drug addicts is somehow justified 

[Jakeman4]

Duterte may not be a particularly diplomatic character, but the man's balls appear to made of titanium. He cussed out Obama in public. He's actually fighting  the dealers, not pushing for legalization so the thugs and hard-core junkies can find other illegal stuff to get into. And he's also not afraid to speak without a pansy political filter. All together I think the west could learn a few things from the man on the other side of the pond.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Effective but inhumane.

 

The drug war itself has been a failure economically. Also, in the town I live in I can still find everything available.

So, the War on Drugs has failed yet we are still paying for it, our prison are still growing and more people are criminalized for using a substance which should never have been outlawed in the first place.

 

"Drugs are bad, so we are going to arrest you, put you in prison and give you a record because we know what is best for you!"

[Rozalia]

"sometimes" radical change doesn't have to include the usage of death squads on drug addicts. a simple "i swear to never to do drugs again" is hardly going to stop a drug addict from overcoming his urge to intake drugs. rehabilitation programs for drug addicts would be ideal, large amount of time in a prison for the drug lords (even death if sentenced so) and their associates. also when is he going to crack down on the oligarchs and general corrupt government, we don't need another marcos. also  note how i never stated "this policy is bad", but i did point out one flaw. summary executions aren't warranted, especially once they're detained.

 

I never said them stating such a thing alone would remove their addiction. The knowledge that they go back to drugs that they could be then be killed at any time is what'll get them swearing off the drugs. Keeping your life tends to be a big motivation.

 

You're looking at it from a western lens again. Would such things really work in the Philippines? Do they even work everywhere in the west? America for example just hardens drug addicts into worse criminals and the drug cartels currently act with relative impunity. You could say making drugs legal will fix everything yeah but considering most of the west doesn't do such a thing it's not exactly fair to attack others for not doing it when the west doesn't.

 

Drug Lords can be hard to get especially when they know the government is seriously going after them so you got two major ways to cripple them. 1: Go after their supply and stop the making/importing of the drugs. 2: Go after the addicts and stop them supplying the Drug Lords with cash. As we see in a lot of places a jail sentences tends to not be enough for such a thing to scare them off drugs, but death seems to work.

[SoS]

Trump will make America like Philippines.

[Franz Von Dietrich]

1.I never said them stating such a thing alone would remove their addiction. The knowledge that they go back to drugs that they could be then be killed at any time is what'll get them swearing off the drugs. Keeping your life tends to be a big motivation.

 

2.You're looking at it from a western lens again. Would such things really work in the Philippines? Do they even work everywhere in the west? America for example just hardens drug addicts into worse criminals and the drug cartels currently act with relative impunity. You could say making drugs legal will fix everything yeah but considering most of the west doesn't do such a thing it's not exactly fair to attack others for not doing it when the west doesn't.

 

3.Drug Lords can be hard to get especially when they know the government is seriously going after them so you got two major ways to cripple them. 1: Go after their supply and stop the making/importing of the drugs. 2: Go after the addicts and stop them supplying the Drug Lords with cash. As we see in a lot of places a jail sentences tends to not be enough for such a thing to scare them off drugs, but death seems to work.

1. you gave the implication that death will be enough for them (drug addicts) to sway off the use of illegal drugs. 

 

2. western lens for a western country. you're forgetting the philippines was occupied by the u.s, culturally influenced, and governmentally reformed. marcos may have screwed up the filipino government with his widespread corruption and embezzlement, but it still shows shocking similarities with most "western" countries. legalizing hard drugs wouldn't do anything, as you stated, but still isn't my argument. i could, however, argue that the immense amount of poverty and the large income gap has a contributing factor to the heavily entrenched drug lords/empires within the philippines. yet, as stated, that's not my argument.

 

3. "go after their supply" drug dealers - people who sell the "goods" on streets or any other generic location. 2. going after drug addicts doesn't have to merit the use of death squads, it could include intensive jail time with rehabilitation. 3. going after drug lords can be hard if you don't crack down explicitly on their drug empires, contacts in the government & police force, and general associates. 

 

don't generally care about the crackdown on the drug empires/drug lords and their generic associates within all fields in the philippines, but the usage of summary squads against drug addicts who have the urge not will (usually, not speaking for all) to intake the usage of drugs.

Edited September 8, 2016 by Uncle Jack

[Rozalia]

1. you gave the implication that death will be enough for them (drug addicts) to sway off the use of illegal drugs. 

 

2. western lens for a western country. you're forgetting the philippines was occupied by the u.s, culturally influenced, and governmentally reformed. marcos may have screwed up the filipino government with his widespread corruption and embezzlement, but it still shows shocking similarities with most "western" countries. legalizing hard drugs wouldn't do anything, as you stated, but still isn't my argument. i could, however, argue that the immense amount of poverty and the large income gap has a contributing factor to the heavily entrenched drug lords/empires within the philippines. yet, as stated, that's not my argument.

 

3. "go after their supply" drug dealers - people who sell the "goods" on streets or any other generic location. 2. going after drug addicts doesn't have merit the use of death squads, it could include intensive jail time with rehabilitation. 3. going after drug lords can be hard if you don't crack down explicitly on their drug empires, contacts in the government & police force, and general associates. 

 

don't generally care about the crackdown on the drug empires/drug lords and their generic associates within all fields in the philippines, but the usage of summary squads against drug addicts who have the urge not will (usually, not speaking for all) to intake the usage of drugs.

 

1: You think the threat of death doesn't make them saying they'll change their ways more likely?

 

2: ??? You can point at pretty everywhere and say "the west has occupied said land and influenced it". 

 

3: Depends on how you want to look at it I suppose. Some would say the addicts made their bed and knew the consequences. With this they have a bigger incentive to kick the stuff and even more importantly possible addicts might pause to think before taking the now risky choice.

[Franz Von Dietrich]

1: You think the threat of death doesn't make them saying they'll change their ways more likely?

 

2: ??? You can point at pretty everywhere and say "the west has occupied said land and influenced it". 

 

3: Depends on how you want to look at it I suppose. Some would say the addicts made their bed and knew the consequences. With this they have a bigger incentive to kick the stuff and even more importantly possible addicts might pause to think before taking the now risky choice.

in response to 1 and 2;

 

however, is the threat of death really necessary to "help" drug addicts? i don't think so, but that's up to you to decide as a human being. also, the point of me stating that was to clarify philippines is not culturally a third world country, it has been heavily influenced by american culture and values. so "western lens" would best apply to a "western" country.

 

3. it may be effective for now, but the future still has yet to unleash the true results of this "war on drugs". although, i do agree with the intensive crackdown on the drug lords and their empires, but i still disagree with the utilization of death squads. until then, when this "war on drugs" is finally over or progress to a certain level, i'll be willing to debate the after results of said policy. 

Edited September 7, 2016 by Uncle Jack

[Tali]

1: You think the threat of death doesn't make them saying they'll change their ways more likely?

 

Back in the olden days, LGBT members were constantly under threat to be killed by the masses. It stopped them from being public and caused them to go underground and take even riskier actions which caused HIV/Aids to go rampant in the LGBT community. If they could of been open to it, they could of resorted in safe practices and HIV/Aids wouldn't have gone as bad as it did in the LGBT community. All this will do is cause them to become more secretive and cause even more risker outcomes than their current route as a drug addict. So no, death squads are not necessary and anybody who supports killing drug addicts are promoting violence and murder.

 

2: ??? You can point at pretty everywhere and say "the west has occupied said land and influenced it".

 

3: Depends on how you want to look at it I suppose. Some would say the addicts made their bed and knew the consequences. With this they have a bigger incentive to kick the stuff and even more importantly possible addicts might pause to think before taking the now risky choice.

 

refer to my comment about on your point 1.

Bolded is my response. Edited September 7, 2016 by Riza Hawkeye

[Frederick]

Duterte is top shitlord and another manifestation of glorious kek.

[Fukataka]

I doubt Duterte is like Trump. Sure he's nationalist and puts his people first.

 

But what's stopping him from planting drugs on his political foes and kill them on the guise of "punishing criminals".

 

As someone who has lived there once, most politicians there seem to stuff their pockets instead of serving the people.

 

Only time can tell if he will be like Trump or another despot like Marcos.

Edited October 4, 2016 by Fukataka