|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 31 2016 02:56 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2016 02:24 LegalLord wrote:CNN a fan of fake news: Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova denied authorities closed an American school in Moscow in retaliation for U.S. sanctions, and accused Western media of spreading fake news.
“Apparently, the White House has totally lost it and is starting to invent sanctions against their own children,” Zakharova said in a post on Facebook. “It is a lie.”
CNN reported on Thursday that Russian authorities would close the Anglo-American School of Moscow. The move was said to be a response to sanctions against Russian individuals and entities unveiled by President Barack Obama on Thursday in retaliation for alleged election-season hacks.
She said media should not report the story by saying Moscow had denied it, but should “write it like it is.”
“The TV channel CNN and other U.S. [and Western] media have again, quoting American official sources, spread false information.”
Zakharova finished her statement with a veiled attack on Obama.
“Normally, people ask Santa Claus to bring them something. This year I am asking him to take someone away,” Zakharova said. SourcePutin also made a statement ( Source) about sanctions response. My translation: «Это явно противоречит коренным интересам как российского, так и американского народов. С учетом особой ответственности России и США за сохранение глобальной безопасности — наносит ущерб и всему комплексу международных отношений», — отметил Путин.
[These sanctions] clearly run contrary to the core interests of both the Russian and the American citizenry. Understanding the importance of the role of both Russia and the US in preserving global peace - this is damaging to the structure of international relations. Later also called it "kitchen diplomacy" and noted that Russia will not be expelling American diplomats. I consider this to be an appropriately low foreign policy note for Obama to go out on. It encapsulates the efficacy of the past eight years of his foreign policy perfectly.
I will say that while my general perception of Obama's presidency is quite nuanced, I have to say that he decided to go out in the style of a petty sore loser who didn't get what he wanted and decided to pout about it.
Also: Britain apparently disagrees with Kerry's recent notorious "two state solution" speech while Germany supports it.
|
Oh boy. Pissing off China by ignoring the One China Policy is some genius diplomacy move, but sanctions and diplomatic censure against a country that is displaying clear expansionist tendencies and interfering in other nations' sovereignty is a "low foreign policy note" that "encapsulates the efficacy of the past eight years of foreign policy perfectly."
The main differences here I see are 1) one of these goes through normal diplomatic channels, the other does not, and 2) in one case, you're actually punishing them for something they did rather than just throwing a punch for the hell of it. Oh, and of course, your guy did one, and the other guy did the other.
|
I approve of Obama's tactics here and can't wait until Trump's America gets off to a rip-roaring start. Yeehaw.
|
On December 31 2016 03:19 LegalLord wrote: Also: Britain apparently disagrees with Kerry's recent notorious "two state solution" speech while Germany supports it.
I can't believe anyone would support that self-conflicting, dishonest, and (veiled) vindictive speech, but that's politics for you. I'm looking forward to see how the Trump White House handles US-Israeli relations, because Trump himself seems to have a good bead on Israel and what Obama has done. Obamas leaving such a stink on his way out. Others here already remarked on how fitting it is. Here's to Obamas last three weeks in office--good riddance!
|
You know, I honestly expected to be more upset about bidding Obama's presidency adieu. Guess that's not going to be the case.
|
Israel needs to be put in its place. Don't know why you guys think it's a bad thing. We still give then a shit ton of cash and the recent deal was a huge aid package. Their PM is a shit aND the US pres shouldn't let him walk all over him.
|
On December 31 2016 05:01 LegalLord wrote:
You know, I honestly expected to be more upset about bidding Obama's presidency adieu. Guess that's not going to be the case.
I know what you mean. I thought I was going to miss him too. I suppose we must have been brainwashed by fake news and Russian propaganda to not worship at Obama's feet as he departs office. Or maybe it's just a case of honeyed words on Obama's part. Eloquent speakers can get away with a lot of stuff.
|
On December 31 2016 05:16 Slaughter wrote:
Israel needs to be put in its place. Don't know why you guys think it's a bad thing. We still give then a shit ton of cash and the recent deal was a huge aid package. Their PM is a shit aND the US pres shouldn't let him walk all over him.
Netanyahu is now under criminal investigation by the Israeli AG so hopefully his moral pedestal gets removed pretty soon.
|
On December 31 2016 05:01 LegalLord wrote:
You know, I honestly expected to be more upset about bidding Obama's presidency adieu. Guess that's not going to be the case.
Come on you've been hacking away at petty Dem issues for months and many people have jumped at the opportunity. If we've seen anything over this election cycle is that 'liberalism' in the US is actually a very thin veneer on top of whatever it is Trump stands for.
If you actually supported Obama for the most part over the last eight years, you'd not suddenly shift your opinion.
|
On December 31 2016 05:33 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2016 05:01 LegalLord wrote:
You know, I honestly expected to be more upset about bidding Obama's presidency adieu. Guess that's not going to be the case. Come on you've been hacking away at petty Dem issues for months and many people have jumped at the opportunity. If we've seen anything over this election cycle is that 'liberalism' in the US is actually a very thin veneer on top of whatever it is Trump stands for. If you actually supported Obama for the most part over the last eight years, you'd not suddenly shift your opinion.
You are not alone in this observation.
|
On December 31 2016 05:33 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2016 05:01 LegalLord wrote:
You know, I honestly expected to be more upset about bidding Obama's presidency adieu. Guess that's not going to be the case. Come on you've been hacking away at petty Dem issues for months and many people have jumped at the opportunity. If we've seen anything over this election cycle is that 'liberalism' in the US is actually a very thin veneer on top of whatever it is Trump stands for. If you actually supported Obama for the most part over the last eight years, you'd not suddenly shift your opinion.
As far as the Russia sanctions they can't get past "Hillary lost because she's a bad candidate not because of Russia". Bias clouds their interpretation of Russia conducting election related hacking.
|
On December 31 2016 05:33 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2016 05:01 LegalLord wrote:
You know, I honestly expected to be more upset about bidding Obama's presidency adieu. Guess that's not going to be the case. Come on you've been hacking away at petty Dem issues for months and many people have jumped at the opportunity. If we've seen anything over this election cycle is that 'liberalism' in the US is actually a very thin veneer on top of whatever it is Trump stands for. If you actually supported Obama for the most part over the last eight years, you'd not suddenly shift your opinion.
I don't think he's terrible. He's alright and I would have easily voted for him over either of the two candidates who won, and I'd probably support him over Bernie Sanders if he had run again (less volatility). I do, however, see that his personal charm has gained him far less of the credit for his policy failures than he deserved and I was previously inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt for too much of that failure.
What I have given Hillary Clinton flak for as SoS, Obama should get just as much flak for since he was the boss who allowed her to do as she did in that position. Took me longer than it should have to realize that. But now in the last two months of his administration, the gloves have come off and he's desperately hurrying to secure his so-called "legacy" against the opposition.
You would have to go not a few pages back to see that I have plenty of criticism for our incoming president, BTW.
|
Seeing as it's been released that two of the Russian hackers already were on the FBI's Most Wanted list, I'd say this is pretty legit and warranted and a non-issue.
The people being sanctioned are all likely tied to Russian intelligence. LegalLord thinks it's undiplomatic? What? It seems more like sanctioning people that shouldn't even be here, or should be in jail.
The problem is, as has often been Obama's problem, attempting diplomacy with people who have no actual interest in diplomacy or compromise, whether it be Russia or Republicans or Israel. Then when he finally gives up kowtowing, he'll be accused for his lack of compromise. Well, what a shock.
|
Well you wouldn't expect the same crowd whose base line option was to oppose Obama no matter what to change now. Even if those same people were calling for a retaliation against Russia just weeks before but ofc because Obama did it they can now say omg sore loser obummer.
Now with the Donald coming in leftists are looking to take up the blind opposition model of the right for the last 8 years and I really wish take they wouldn't pick up that behavior from them.
|
On December 31 2016 05:54 Slaughter wrote:
Well you wouldn't expect the same crowd whose base line option was to oppose Obama no matter what to change now. Even if those same people were calling for a retaliation against Russia just weeks before but ofc because Obama did it they can now say omg sore loser obummer.
Now with the Donald coming in leftists are looking to take up the blind opposition model of the right for the last 8 years and I really wish take they wouldn't pick up that behavior from them.
What's funny is that Paul Ryan said these new sanctions were "long overdue", and just criticized Obama for them, despite admitting they're a good thing. Vague criticisms about failed foreign policy, despite not a shred of logic about how Obama should have prevented the cyber attack.
“While today’s action by the administration is overdue, it is an appropriate way to end eight years of failed policy with Russia. And it serves as a prime example of this administration’s ineffective foreign policy that has left America weaker in the eyes of the world.”
It is just knee jerk criticism, in this case requiring some serious mental gymnastics to be able to also admit that retaliation is a good thing.
|
Personally i don't want to see WW3 with Russia but Obama seems hell bent on provoking it.
Jan 20 cannot come soon enough.
|
This oscillation between "Obama was just ineffectively pouting here" and "gosh, why is Obama starting ww3" among detractors is hilarious.
|
On December 31 2016 06:24 farvacola wrote:
This oscillation between "Obama was just ineffectively pouring here" and "gosh, why is Obama starting ww3" among detractors is hilarious.
Then again, so is the vacuous commentary from the sidelines by his supporters who are remarkably uncritical of his errors (and of some of his "successes" for that matter), so it all sort of balances out.
|
On December 31 2016 02:20 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2016 01:59 Danglars wrote:On December 31 2016 01:20 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:An internal Miami police investigation has found three rookie officers joked in a group chat about using the city’s primarily black neighborhoods for target practice.
According to investigation documents obtained by the Miami Herald, the officers told an investigator they were only joking. The newspaper said officers Kevin Bergnes, Miguel Valdes and Bruce Alcin were fired two days before Christmas. It said Alcin is African American and Valdes has a black grandfather.
The remarks upset colleagues and came as the department is under supervision of the US Department of Justice following a series of police shootings.
“It was senseless, young and reckless,” Justin Pinn, an African American member of a civilian board tasked with monitoring Miami’s federal policing agreement, told the paper.
“It shouldn’t be tolerated. Officers are supposed to be guardians not warriors. I don’t think what they expressed reflects the values of the department.”
Attorney Stephen Lopez, who represents the three officers, said the remarks were taken out of context and that there was no misconduct.
“Two of the officers have black blood pumping through their veins,” he told the newspaper. “To say that they’re racist is outrageous and ludicrous.”
Police union president Lieutenant Javier Ortiz maintained that the officers should have been reprimanded not fired, since their “messages were in poor taste, but weren’t in any way racial”.
The incident happened on 30 June, as the three officers were responding to other rookie officers’ questions about shooting ranges in a WhatsApp chat they often communicated in, the paper said.
According to documents obtained by the Herald, the officers-in-training shared department information on that thread. Source Are we to the point where three rookie officers making inappropriate jokes in a group chat is news? Yeah probably reprimand and retrain instead of fire, but police departments are in the firing line these days and take action against any bad PR. Hey let's go to the shooting range! [inappropriate joke]. Sweet, you made the Miami herald! I agree that firing sounds excessive. some reprimands and retraining are fine. even if the officer's intent were racial, I don't think it would rise to a fireable offense.
The hell?
I can't think of a more worthless opinion than police union presidents, for adequate punishment of officers.
“Two of the officers have black blood pumping through their veins,” he told the newspaper. “To say that they’re racist is outrageous and ludicrous.”
^This is typical ignorance of how racism works. Also they say one is black, and the other has a black grandfather (wouldn't that make him black too?)
Finally,
If they didn't know better than to make those jokes, then they shouldn't be cops.
|
On December 31 2016 06:08 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2016 05:54 Slaughter wrote:
Well you wouldn't expect the same crowd whose base line option was to oppose Obama no matter what to change now. Even if those same people were calling for a retaliation against Russia just weeks before but ofc because Obama did it they can now say omg sore loser obummer.
Now with the Donald coming in leftists are looking to take up the blind opposition model of the right for the last 8 years and I really wish take they wouldn't pick up that behavior from them. What's funny is that Paul Ryan said these new sanctions were "long overdue", and just criticized Obama for them, despite admitting they're a good thing. Vague criticisms about failed foreign policy, despite not a shred of logic about how Obama should have prevented the cyber attack. Show nested quote +“While today’s action by the administration is overdue, it is an appropriate way to end eight years of failed policy with Russia. And it serves as a prime example of this administration’s ineffective foreign policy that has left America weaker in the eyes of the world.” It is just knee jerk criticism, in this case requiring some serious mental gymnastics to be able to also admit that retaliation is a good thing.
my take on that is that there's no way he's stupid enough to not realize that himself, is actually in favor what Obama did because it's exactly what everyone on the right has been asking for for the last 8 years and now that Obama actually did it he wants to both
a) be anti-Obama for voters sake as well as
b) anti-Trump
The first is what you touched on, the second one would be by going back to it some point in the future, pointing at it and stating something along the lines of "see? I was in favor of stronger reactions towards foreign nations screwing us over. I just didn't want to be too nice to Obama for obvious reasons"
The reason I'm saying that is because like you said, what he said makes no sense and I just don't think he's that stupid.
He could have just praised Russia and Trump to make people on the right happy but he chose not to
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
