Obama got an applause for saying illegals undercut American workers, and safety laws. Trump echos the EXACTsame talking points, and gets labeled a Fascist Nazi. Make it make sense

Before I can answer that I have to ask you to clarify something. Do you accept crimes committed during armed conflict within the technical definition, or does there have to be an official declaration of war? Can a war crime be committed during military conflict if no war was declared?

If a deceleration of war is required, then I must admit I am unable to provide examples. 

A war crime has to be committed while a war is being conducted, must be part and parcel of that war (otherwise, it's just a plain old crime crime), and has to violate some law or treaty or agreement regarding the conduct of wars. This properly narrow definition means that war crimes are actually quite rare.

Armed conflict without a declaration of war technically cannot produce a war crime. But there's not much of a distinction if the offending entity is performing an action that is a war in all aspects except the name. Trump is conducting a war that is undeclared but ticks all the other boxes. Therefore:

Trump's actions are war crimes because they violate US law.

Trump's actions are war crimes because they violate the UN charter, to which the US is a signatory.

Trump's actions are war crimes because they violate international treaties, such as those guaranteeing freedom of the seas.

There's also a general agreement among civilized nations that war has rules, such as not deliberately causing civilian casualties, treatment of prisoners according to the Geneva Convention, bacterial and chemical warfare being outlawed, and so forth. There's also the concept of armed forces being professional and accomplishing their missions without unnecessary collateral damage or prolongation of the conflict.

Then I think several of the unauthorized drone attacks, among other things that Obama ordered could qualify as war crimes. I understand how one may disagree though and it is certainly not a semantic hill on which I am willing to die. 

Well, since both "tyrant" and "war criminal" are somewhat subjective terms and not really precisely defined anywhere, we have to default to considering degree and context. It's ludicrous IMHO to compare/conflate what Obama did with the actions of REAL tyrants and REAL war criminals.

In replying to the original post it was not intended to compare or conflate. My intent was to point out that just because Obama said or did something doesn't necessarily mean it should be used as a shining example of good governance. 

The original poster seemed to imply that if Obama did it then it should be okay for others. My intent was to refute that implication. 

Yes, I got it then and I get it now, but your original reply sure looked like you agreed with him. You may not know that he's been bitching about Obama for well over a decade. When a Black man was elected President, Miller tried to throw himself in front of a bus but tripped and landed face down in a cow pie. Since then, he's been simmering with resentment.