|
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 July 25 2017 23:09 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2017 23:04 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On July 25 2017 21:34 Plansix wrote:
I'm confused by the article's premise, am I supposed to take the republicans seriously on Russia? No.... The republicans controlled congress for 6 year, didn't this also happen on their watch? What if the real answer is that winner takes all, win by any means necessary style politics is harmful to the nation as a whole? Congress doesn't do much foreign policy. The President has enormous powers to shape foreign policy according to his will. Unlike domestic policy, where he can't even technically propose legislation. But US presidential candidates spend the vast majority of their time discussing domestic policy, with very little attention paid to foreign policy, because most Americans can't find Afghanistan on a map, after we've been at war there for 17 years. My point is that Obama has no one but himself to blame for his own foreign policy failures. Most of them were caused by Obama making decisions in foreign affairs on the primary basis of what would play best to his audience back home, not on the basis of what would have the best long-term impact on the world. (for evidence of this, see Ben Rhodes's profile in the NYT.) Obama could have taken the Russian threat seriously at any point during his presidency. He chose not to because that would have damaged his domestic political narrative of a successful "reset" with the Russians. Keep in mind, the "reset" came months after Russia invaded Georgia. As the article I linked pointed out, the passage of the Magnitsky Act was opposed by Democrats, because additional sanctions on Russia for its horrible actions undermined the Official Narrative that the misspelled "reset" had worked. So instead Obama only woke up to join the fight at the 11th hour, when a greatly emboldened Russia began dramatically meddling in US domestic politics to the detriment of the Democratic party. Do I blame Obama for not taking the Russians seriously for a very long time, despite ample warnings, particularly after 2014? Absolutely. The current outcry from the Democrat party over the Russia scandal does have validity, because it is a huge freaking scandal. That being said, I am somewhat cynical concerning the motivations of Democratic politicians. "For their current criticisms of the Trump administration to carry water, liberals will have to do more than simply apologize for regurgitating Obama’s insult that Republicans are retrograde Cold Warriors. They will have to renounce pretty much the entire Obama foreign policy legacy, which both underestimated and appeased Russia at every turn. Otherwise, their grave intonations about 'active measures,' 'kompromat' and other Soviet-era phenomena will continue sounding opportunistic, and their protestations about Trump being a Russian stooge will continue to have the appearance of being motivated solely by partisan politics." If the scandal does have validity, then it must deserve some attention from the Democratic party. To say you can't tell whether that attention is motivated solely by partisan politics is just kind of a cynical assumption, probably an attempt to deflect some attention back to the Democrats. There should be assumption that the attention to this issue from the Democratic party is legitimate, because the scandal is, on its face, legitimate. The scandal is also a new and unique issue, so talking about Obama's foreign policy is really just whataboutism. Russia was not conducting disinformation on this scale during the Obama administration.
No, it is not whataboutism. I have been a harsh critic of Trump and his Russian ties in this thread.
Can someone remind me whether the 2016 election took place during Obama's administration or not? I'm having trouble remembering.
A lot of conservative commentators are also cherry picking the most sensational statements from Democrats on this issue (like this guy saying Ivana was a Russian plant), and using that to brand the whole Democratic party and say its attention to the Russia scandal is illegitimate.
The author of that article has also written stuff like How the GOP Became the Party of Putin. To say he is trying to dismiss the Russia scandal as "illegitimate" is nonsense. Did you even read the actual linked article?
|
On July 25 2017 23:04 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2017 21:34 Plansix wrote:
I'm confused by the article's premise, am I supposed to take the republicans seriously on Russia? No.... Show nested quote +The republicans controlled congress for 6 year, didn't this also happen on their watch? What if the real answer is that winner takes all, win by any means necessary style politics is harmful to the nation as a whole? Congress doesn't do much foreign policy. The President has enormous powers to shape foreign policy according to his will. Unlike domestic policy, where he can't even technically propose legislation. But US presidential candidates spend the vast majority of their time discussing domestic policy, with very little attention paid to foreign policy, because most Americans can't find Afghanistan on a map, after we've been at war there for 17 years. My point is that Obama has no one but himself to blame for his own foreign policy failures. Most of them were caused by Obama making decisions in foreign affairs on the primary basis of what would play best to his audience back home, not on the basis of what would have the best long-term impact on the world. (for evidence of this, see Ben Rhodes's profile in the NYT.) Obama could have taken the Russian threat seriously at any point during his presidency. He chose not to because that would have damaged his domestic political narrative of a successful "reset" with the Russians. Keep in mind, the "reset" came months after Russia invaded Georgia. As the article I linked pointed out, the passage of the Magnitsky Act was opposed by Democrats, because additional sanctions on Russia for its horrible actions undermined the Official Narrative that the misspelled "reset" had worked. So instead Obama only woke up to join the fight at the 11th hour, when a greatly emboldened Russia began dramatically meddling in US domestic politics to the detriment of the Democratic party. Do I blame Obama for not taking the Russians seriously for a very long time, despite ample warnings, particularly after 2014? Absolutely. The current outcry from the Democrat party over the Russia scandal does have validity, because it is a huge freaking scandal. That being said, I am somewhat cynical concerning the motivations of Democratic politicians. "For their current criticisms of the Trump administration to carry water, liberals will have to do more than simply apologize for regurgitating Obama’s insult that Republicans are retrograde Cold Warriors. They will have to renounce pretty much the entire Obama foreign policy legacy, which both underestimated and appeased Russia at every turn. Otherwise, their grave intonations about 'active measures,' 'kompromat' and other Soviet-era phenomena will continue sounding opportunistic, and their protestations about Trump being a Russian stooge will continue to have the appearance of being motivated solely by partisan politics."
That is some damn impressive re-writing of history there.
Obama's Russian reset? Are you for real? Last I checked Russia was hurting under economic sanctions put on by the EU and US under Obama.
One side complains that the US is hurtling headlong into a new war with Russia while the other complains they were not hard enough, right up to the point where they themselves got in charge and then they were best friends with Russia all along...
What do you think Obama should have done more? Should he have declared war? Should he have made sweeping moves to economically isolate Russia after the election so that everyone would complain he was 'abusing' his power like they already did? Because he can't do that before the crime is actually committed.
What do you think the Democrats did not do enough of? And why would that even matter. No matter the mountain upon mountain of 'stuff' you think he should have done. None of it excuses the actions of the Republicans today.
Its the stupid notion that you cant criticize the fact that the President and his closest associates are in proven collusion with a foreign state that you yourself deem dangerous because they haven't kneeled before god and confessed their heinous crimes of not launching ww3 and ending the world in nuclear fire.
|
On July 25 2017 23:04 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2017 21:34 Plansix wrote:
I'm confused by the article's premise, am I supposed to take the republicans seriously on Russia? No.... Show nested quote +The republicans controlled congress for 6 year, didn't this also happen on their watch? What if the real answer is that winner takes all, win by any means necessary style politics is harmful to the nation as a whole? Congress doesn't do much foreign policy. The President has enormous powers to shape foreign policy according to his will. Unlike domestic policy, where he can't even technically propose legislation. But US presidential candidates spend the vast majority of their time discussing domestic policy, with very little attention paid to foreign policy, because most Americans can't find Afghanistan on a map, after we've been at war there for 17 years. My point is that Obama has no one but himself to blame for his own foreign policy failures. Most of them were caused by Obama making decisions in foreign affairs on the primary basis of what would play best to his audience back home, not on the basis of what would have the best long-term impact on the world. (for evidence of this, see Ben Rhodes's profile in the NYT.) Obama could have taken the Russian threat seriously at any point during his presidency. He chose not to because that would have damaged his domestic political narrative of a successful "reset" with the Russians. Keep in mind, the "reset" came months after Russia invaded Georgia. As the article I linked pointed out, the passage of the Magnitsky Act was opposed by Democrats, because additional sanctions on Russia for its horrible actions undermined the Official Narrative that the misspelled "reset" had worked. So instead Obama only woke up to join the fight at the 11th hour, when a greatly emboldened Russia began dramatically meddling in US domestic politics to the detriment of the Democratic party. Do I blame Obama for not taking the Russians seriously for a very long time, despite ample warnings, particularly after 2014? Absolutely. The current outcry from the Democrat party over the Russia scandal does have validity, because it is a huge freaking scandal. That being said, I am somewhat cynical concerning the motivations of Democratic politicians. "For their current criticisms of the Trump administration to carry water, liberals will have to do more than simply apologize for regurgitating Obama’s insult that Republicans are retrograde Cold Warriors. They will have to renounce pretty much the entire Obama foreign policy legacy, which both underestimated and appeased Russia at every turn. Otherwise, their grave intonations about 'active measures,' 'kompromat' and other Soviet-era phenomena will continue sounding opportunistic, and their protestations about Trump being a Russian stooge will continue to have the appearance of being motivated solely by partisan politics."
You may have missed my opinions on the subject, but I don’t disagree that Obama had short comings. But Congress’s hands off foreign policy stance has been a huge problem for the US since 9/11. They have been more than happy to hand over that job to the oval office and heckle from the side lines. This has created a problem, since they all have no skin in the game anymore and limited investment.
I will freely admit that Obama has failings in foreign policy. However, congress has theirs that I won’t let people heap on Obama’s lap. When congress voted down Obama’s request to strike Syria after they deployed chemical weapon, they might as well have set off a starter gun for people to challenge the US. Three months later Russia invaded Ukraine. Is it Obama’s fault for drawing the red line? Sure. But it is also congress’s fault for not having the president’s back, for being all too willing to put domestic political gain over backing the Commander and Chief.
The president is no all powerful and does not have total control over US foreign policy. Congress should have greater involvement in that complicated issue, simple because that forces them to sell these foreign policy decisions to their district. The current dynamic of them using running against the foreign policy of the oval office is not acceptable and not healthy in the long term. These Russian hacks are just start of how dysfunctional thing could get.
Edit: I am also deeply trouble by the attacks on Obama for not bringing up the Russian hacks during the election. The Republicans need to take a good look in the mirror and ask themselves why Obama was not comfortable doing that. I would love to live in the world where the president could come out with these revelations and the opposing part would take it all in good faith, but that is not the reality I live in. Again, it is easy to heckle once the hard decisions have been made.
|
On July 25 2017 23:07 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2017 23:04 Doodsmack wrote:
If Sessions has any self respect left he'll resign today. What. Dude, you really don't want Sessions to resign. Nobody who wants Mueller's investigation to be done properly and thoroughly should want Sessions to resign. If Sessions resigns, there will be a new AG, almost certainly one who will not have to recuse from Mueller's investigation. If this new AG is a Trump loyalist, he will then fire Mueller for some BS reason. The Special Counsel statute requires that Mueller's firing be done "in writing, for good cause." So then we will get a national partisan debate food fight over whether whatever BS excuse is used to fire Mueller is "good cause" (hint: it won't be), and meanwhile there will be no investigation, which is exactly what Trump wants.
So no, it wouldn't matter much.
|
On July 25 2017 23:26 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2017 23:07 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On July 25 2017 23:04 Doodsmack wrote:
If Sessions has any self respect left he'll resign today. What. Dude, you really don't want Sessions to resign. Nobody who wants Mueller's investigation to be done properly and thoroughly should want Sessions to resign. If Sessions resigns, there will be a new AG, almost certainly one who will not have to recuse from Mueller's investigation. If this new AG is a Trump loyalist, he will then fire Mueller for some BS reason. The Special Counsel statute requires that Mueller's firing be done "in writing, for good cause." So then we will get a national partisan debate food fight over whether whatever BS excuse is used to fire Mueller is "good cause" (hint: it won't be), and meanwhile there will be no investigation, which is exactly what Trump wants. https://twitter.com/RepAdamSchiff/status/874406787293773824So no, it wouldn't matter much.
Keep in mind that's coming from a Democrat. Until Paul Ryan or McConnell says the same, it's mostly just puffery. Ryan came *kind of* close in saying Mueller was a non-partisan recently, but they're both still mum on the subject.
|
On July 25 2017 23:17 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2017 23:04 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On July 25 2017 21:34 Plansix wrote:
I'm confused by the article's premise, am I supposed to take the republicans seriously on Russia? No.... The republicans controlled congress for 6 year, didn't this also happen on their watch? What if the real answer is that winner takes all, win by any means necessary style politics is harmful to the nation as a whole? Congress doesn't do much foreign policy. The President has enormous powers to shape foreign policy according to his will. Unlike domestic policy, where he can't even technically propose legislation. But US presidential candidates spend the vast majority of their time discussing domestic policy, with very little attention paid to foreign policy, because most Americans can't find Afghanistan on a map, after we've been at war there for 17 years. My point is that Obama has no one but himself to blame for his own foreign policy failures. Most of them were caused by Obama making decisions in foreign affairs on the primary basis of what would play best to his audience back home, not on the basis of what would have the best long-term impact on the world. (for evidence of this, see Ben Rhodes's profile in the NYT.) Obama could have taken the Russian threat seriously at any point during his presidency. He chose not to because that would have damaged his domestic political narrative of a successful "reset" with the Russians. Keep in mind, the "reset" came months after Russia invaded Georgia. As the article I linked pointed out, the passage of the Magnitsky Act was opposed by Democrats, because additional sanctions on Russia for its horrible actions undermined the Official Narrative that the misspelled "reset" had worked. So instead Obama only woke up to join the fight at the 11th hour, when a greatly emboldened Russia began dramatically meddling in US domestic politics to the detriment of the Democratic party. Do I blame Obama for not taking the Russians seriously for a very long time, despite ample warnings, particularly after 2014? Absolutely. The current outcry from the Democrat party over the Russia scandal does have validity, because it is a huge freaking scandal. That being said, I am somewhat cynical concerning the motivations of Democratic politicians. "For their current criticisms of the Trump administration to carry water, liberals will have to do more than simply apologize for regurgitating Obama’s insult that Republicans are retrograde Cold Warriors. They will have to renounce pretty much the entire Obama foreign policy legacy, which both underestimated and appeased Russia at every turn. Otherwise, their grave intonations about 'active measures,' 'kompromat' and other Soviet-era phenomena will continue sounding opportunistic, and their protestations about Trump being a Russian stooge will continue to have the appearance of being motivated solely by partisan politics." That is some damn impressive re-writing of history there. Obama's Russian reset? Are you for real? Last I checked Russia was hurting under economic sanctions put on by the EU and US under Obama. One side complains that the US is hurtling headlong into a new war with Russia while the other complains they were not hard enough, right up to the point where they themselves got in charge and then they were best friends with Russia all along... What do you think Obama should have done more? Should he have declared war? Should he have made sweeping moves to economically isolate Russia after the election so that everyone would complain he was 'abusing' his power like they already did? Because he can't do that before the crime is actually committed. What do you think the Democrats did not do enough of?
Clearly nobody is actually, oh I don't know, READING the article I linked before commenting on it extensively.
Today’s liberal Russia hawks would have us believe that they’ve always been clear-sighted about Kremlin perfidy and mischief. They’re displaying amnesia not just over a single law but the entire foreign policy record of the Obama administration. From the reset, which it announced in early 2009 just months after Russia invaded Georgia, to its removal of missile defense systems in the Czech Republic and Poland later that year, to its ignoring Russia’s violations of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (while simultaneously negotiating New START) and its ceding the ground in Syria to Russian military intervention, the Obama administration’s Russia policy was one, protracted, eight-year-long concession to Moscow. Throughout his two terms in office, Obama played down the threat Russia posed to America’s allies, interests and values, and ridiculed those who warned otherwise. “The traditional divisions between nations of the south and the north make no sense in an interconnected world nor do alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long-gone Cold War,” Obama lectured the United Nations General Assembly in 2009, a more florid and verbose way of making the exact same criticism of supposed NATO obsolescence that liberals would later excoriate Trump for bluntly declaring.
That's what I blame Obama for, helping get us into this mess. I'm not equating Obama to Trump, despite what reactionary partisan leftists here seem to think for no apparent reason.
And why would that even matter. No matter the mountain upon mountain of 'stuff' you think he should have done. None of it excuses the actions of the Republicans today.
I never said that. The article I quoted never said that. This is a total strawman.
Its the stupid notion that you cant criticize the fact that the President and his closest associates are in proven collusion with a foreign state that you yourself deem dangerous because they haven't kneeled before god and confessed their heinous crimes of not launching ww3 and ending the world in nuclear fire.
More strawmanning...
|
On July 25 2017 23:29 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2017 23:26 Gahlo wrote:On July 25 2017 23:07 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On July 25 2017 23:04 Doodsmack wrote:
If Sessions has any self respect left he'll resign today. What. Dude, you really don't want Sessions to resign. Nobody who wants Mueller's investigation to be done properly and thoroughly should want Sessions to resign. If Sessions resigns, there will be a new AG, almost certainly one who will not have to recuse from Mueller's investigation. If this new AG is a Trump loyalist, he will then fire Mueller for some BS reason. The Special Counsel statute requires that Mueller's firing be done "in writing, for good cause." So then we will get a national partisan debate food fight over whether whatever BS excuse is used to fire Mueller is "good cause" (hint: it won't be), and meanwhile there will be no investigation, which is exactly what Trump wants. https://twitter.com/RepAdamSchiff/status/874406787293773824So no, it wouldn't matter much. Keep in mind that's coming from a Democrat. Until Paul Ryan or McConnell says the same, it's mostly just puffery. Ryan came *kind of* close in saying Mueller was a non-partisan recently, but they're both still mum on the subject.
This. A single Democratic congressman cannot guarantee the safety of Mueller's investigation.
|
Thinking about it more, I wonder if some of this Sessions stuff is driven by Trump's ego rather than actually wanting to fire him. Keeping up this "will he or won't he" keeps him in headlines in a way that isn't "oh yeah, he can't repeal Obamacare, what a loser."
Plus he seems to enjoy the Nixonian comparisons on some level.
|
On July 25 2017 23:13 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2017 23:09 Doodsmack wrote:On July 25 2017 23:04 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On July 25 2017 21:34 Plansix wrote:
I'm confused by the article's premise, am I supposed to take the republicans seriously on Russia? No.... The republicans controlled congress for 6 year, didn't this also happen on their watch? What if the real answer is that winner takes all, win by any means necessary style politics is harmful to the nation as a whole? Congress doesn't do much foreign policy. The President has enormous powers to shape foreign policy according to his will. Unlike domestic policy, where he can't even technically propose legislation. But US presidential candidates spend the vast majority of their time discussing domestic policy, with very little attention paid to foreign policy, because most Americans can't find Afghanistan on a map, after we've been at war there for 17 years. My point is that Obama has no one but himself to blame for his own foreign policy failures. Most of them were caused by Obama making decisions in foreign affairs on the primary basis of what would play best to his audience back home, not on the basis of what would have the best long-term impact on the world. (for evidence of this, see Ben Rhodes's profile in the NYT.) Obama could have taken the Russian threat seriously at any point during his presidency. He chose not to because that would have damaged his domestic political narrative of a successful "reset" with the Russians. Keep in mind, the "reset" came months after Russia invaded Georgia. As the article I linked pointed out, the passage of the Magnitsky Act was opposed by Democrats, because additional sanctions on Russia for its horrible actions undermined the Official Narrative that the misspelled "reset" had worked. So instead Obama only woke up to join the fight at the 11th hour, when a greatly emboldened Russia began dramatically meddling in US domestic politics to the detriment of the Democratic party. Do I blame Obama for not taking the Russians seriously for a very long time, despite ample warnings, particularly after 2014? Absolutely. The current outcry from the Democrat party over the Russia scandal does have validity, because it is a huge freaking scandal. That being said, I am somewhat cynical concerning the motivations of Democratic politicians. "For their current criticisms of the Trump administration to carry water, liberals will have to do more than simply apologize for regurgitating Obama’s insult that Republicans are retrograde Cold Warriors. They will have to renounce pretty much the entire Obama foreign policy legacy, which both underestimated and appeased Russia at every turn. Otherwise, their grave intonations about 'active measures,' 'kompromat' and other Soviet-era phenomena will continue sounding opportunistic, and their protestations about Trump being a Russian stooge will continue to have the appearance of being motivated solely by partisan politics." If the scandal does have validity, then it must deserve some attention from the Democratic party. To say you can't tell whether that attention is motivated solely by partisan politics is just kind of a cynical assumption, probably an attempt to deflect some attention back to the Democrats. There should be assumption that the attention to this issue from the Democratic party is legitimate, because the scandal is, on its face, legitimate. The scandal is also a new and unique issue, so talking about Obama's foreign policy is really just whataboutism. Russia was not conducting disinformation on this scale during the Obama administration. No, it is not whataboutism. I have been a harsh critic of Trump and his Russian ties in this thread. Can someone remind me whether the 2016 election took place during Obama's administration or not? I'm having trouble remembering. Show nested quote +A lot of conservative commentators are also cherry picking the most sensational statements from Democrats on this issue (like this guy saying Ivana was a Russian plant), and using that to brand the whole Democratic party and say its attention to the Russia scandal is illegitimate. The author of that article has also written stuff like How the GOP Became the Party of Putin. To say he is trying to dismiss the Russia scandal as "illegitimate" is nonsense. Did you even read the actual linked article?
Regardless of what else you or the author have said on Russia, to claim that Democrats should be talking about Obama's foreign policy at the same time as this Russian scandal is whataboutism. The hacking did take place during Obama's administration, but the present investigation is of Trump and his campaign. And I think Democrats have said that Obama dropped the ball by not responding more forcefully as it was happening. Including Adam Schiff.
I didn't say the author claimed the Russian scandal is illegitimate, I said he claimed Democrats' attention to the issue is illegitimate.
People say "did you even read" or "go back and read" too often around here when in fact they are missing the issues themselves.
|
On July 25 2017 23:30 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2017 23:17 Gorsameth wrote:On July 25 2017 23:04 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On July 25 2017 21:34 Plansix wrote:
I'm confused by the article's premise, am I supposed to take the republicans seriously on Russia? No.... The republicans controlled congress for 6 year, didn't this also happen on their watch? What if the real answer is that winner takes all, win by any means necessary style politics is harmful to the nation as a whole? Congress doesn't do much foreign policy. The President has enormous powers to shape foreign policy according to his will. Unlike domestic policy, where he can't even technically propose legislation. But US presidential candidates spend the vast majority of their time discussing domestic policy, with very little attention paid to foreign policy, because most Americans can't find Afghanistan on a map, after we've been at war there for 17 years. My point is that Obama has no one but himself to blame for his own foreign policy failures. Most of them were caused by Obama making decisions in foreign affairs on the primary basis of what would play best to his audience back home, not on the basis of what would have the best long-term impact on the world. (for evidence of this, see Ben Rhodes's profile in the NYT.) Obama could have taken the Russian threat seriously at any point during his presidency. He chose not to because that would have damaged his domestic political narrative of a successful "reset" with the Russians. Keep in mind, the "reset" came months after Russia invaded Georgia. As the article I linked pointed out, the passage of the Magnitsky Act was opposed by Democrats, because additional sanctions on Russia for its horrible actions undermined the Official Narrative that the misspelled "reset" had worked. So instead Obama only woke up to join the fight at the 11th hour, when a greatly emboldened Russia began dramatically meddling in US domestic politics to the detriment of the Democratic party. Do I blame Obama for not taking the Russians seriously for a very long time, despite ample warnings, particularly after 2014? Absolutely. The current outcry from the Democrat party over the Russia scandal does have validity, because it is a huge freaking scandal. That being said, I am somewhat cynical concerning the motivations of Democratic politicians. "For their current criticisms of the Trump administration to carry water, liberals will have to do more than simply apologize for regurgitating Obama’s insult that Republicans are retrograde Cold Warriors. They will have to renounce pretty much the entire Obama foreign policy legacy, which both underestimated and appeased Russia at every turn. Otherwise, their grave intonations about 'active measures,' 'kompromat' and other Soviet-era phenomena will continue sounding opportunistic, and their protestations about Trump being a Russian stooge will continue to have the appearance of being motivated solely by partisan politics." That is some damn impressive re-writing of history there. Obama's Russian reset? Are you for real? Last I checked Russia was hurting under economic sanctions put on by the EU and US under Obama. One side complains that the US is hurtling headlong into a new war with Russia while the other complains they were not hard enough, right up to the point where they themselves got in charge and then they were best friends with Russia all along... What do you think Obama should have done more? Should he have declared war? Should he have made sweeping moves to economically isolate Russia after the election so that everyone would complain he was 'abusing' his power like they already did? Because he can't do that before the crime is actually committed. What do you think the Democrats did not do enough of? Clearly nobody is actually, oh I don't know, READING the article I linked before commenting on it extensively. Show nested quote +Today’s liberal Russia hawks would have us believe that they’ve always been clear-sighted about Kremlin perfidy and mischief. They’re displaying amnesia not just over a single law but the entire foreign policy record of the Obama administration. From the reset, which it announced in early 2009 just months after Russia invaded Georgia, to its removal of missile defense systems in the Czech Republic and Poland later that year, to its ignoring Russia’s violations of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (while simultaneously negotiating New START) and its ceding the ground in Syria to Russian military intervention, the Obama administration’s Russia policy was one, protracted, eight-year-long concession to Moscow. Throughout his two terms in office, Obama played down the threat Russia posed to America’s allies, interests and values, and ridiculed those who warned otherwise. “The traditional divisions between nations of the south and the north make no sense in an interconnected world nor do alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long-gone Cold War,” Obama lectured the United Nations General Assembly in 2009, a more florid and verbose way of making the exact same criticism of supposed NATO obsolescence that liberals would later excoriate Trump for bluntly declaring. That's what I blame Obama for, helping get us into this mess. I'm not equating Obama to Trump, despite what reactionary partisan leftists here seem to think for no apparent reason. Show nested quote + And why would that even matter. No matter the mountain upon mountain of 'stuff' you think he should have done. None of it excuses the actions of the Republicans today. I never said that. The article I quoted never said that. This is a total strawman. Show nested quote +
Its the stupid notion that you cant criticize the fact that the President and his closest associates are in proven collusion with a foreign state that you yourself deem dangerous because they haven't kneeled before god and confessed their heinous crimes of not launching ww3 and ending the world in nuclear fire.
More strawmanning...
Yes, back in 2009 his stance on Russia was soft.
But sure lets ignore the giant turn his administration made from its first year because that doesn't suit the narrative that Obama didn't do enough.
Growing Russian intervention in Russia. What would you have him do? Remembering that it was a Republican congress that tied his hands on large scale action.
That's the question I ask to you when you say "Obama didn't do enough". What should he have done, name me stuff. Don't just vague handwave and name what he should have done differently.
Right now Russia is struggling under economic sanctions and the weak oil price the US helped create. What more should Obama have done that he was in a position to do?
|
Any news yet about healthcare? The vote is today, right?
|
My question is: What could Obama have done that would not have looked like a sitting president attempting to turn the election in his parties favor? Because I can’t think of a single thing.
|
Poll: ACA - will they vote to debate repeal today?No (5) 71% Yes (2) 29% 7 total votes Your vote: ACA - will they vote to debate repeal today? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
To me, this idea of shuttling McCain to DC makes me think they have a shot with him there. Sadly, I am thinking they actually do it today.
|
On July 25 2017 23:50 Mohdoo wrote:Poll: ACA - will they vote to debate repeal today?No (5) 71% Yes (2) 29% 7 total votes Your vote: ACA - will they vote to debate repeal today? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
To me, this idea of shuttling McCain to DC makes me think they have a shot with him there. Sadly, I am thinking they actually do it today.
I agree, if they are bringing in McCain they have the numbers
|
On July 25 2017 23:26 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2017 23:07 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On July 25 2017 23:04 Doodsmack wrote:
If Sessions has any self respect left he'll resign today. What. Dude, you really don't want Sessions to resign. Nobody who wants Mueller's investigation to be done properly and thoroughly should want Sessions to resign. If Sessions resigns, there will be a new AG, almost certainly one who will not have to recuse from Mueller's investigation. If this new AG is a Trump loyalist, he will then fire Mueller for some BS reason. The Special Counsel statute requires that Mueller's firing be done "in writing, for good cause." So then we will get a national partisan debate food fight over whether whatever BS excuse is used to fire Mueller is "good cause" (hint: it won't be), and meanwhile there will be no investigation, which is exactly what Trump wants. https://twitter.com/RepAdamSchiff/status/874406787293773824So no, it wouldn't matter much.
Because "I can't appoint like the executive branch can" and "I hope Republicans will join me in this because I would need their cooperation" doesn't have quite the same ring to it. Bumbling fool.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
That Obama failed to reset relations with Russia is nothing out of the ordinary. He is not the first nor the last president to desire better relations with Russia but fail to understand the scope of what would have to go into that effort. Like his immediate predecessors and possibly his successor, he left US-Russia relations in a worse state than when he started. On the current course this will continue until things become outright hostile.
He was not a good FP president. He rather uncritically followed the overall strategy of the same brand of US FP orthodoxy that brought us the Bush decade of failure. He may have occasionally overruled them in a significant way - such as in Syria - but the overall strategy he still accepted. I think you could safely say that his politics abroad played a large part in bringing the festering protectionist-populist sentiment to the fore. In that environment Trump blossomed as a populist icon.
|
On July 25 2017 23:54 LegalLord wrote:
That Obama failed to reset relations with Russia is nothing out of the ordinary. He is not the first nor the last president to desire better relations with Russia but fail to understand the scope of what would have to go into that effort. Like his immediate predecessors and possibly his successor, he left US-Russia relations in a worse state than when he started. On the current course this will continue until things become outright hostile.
He was not a good FP president. He rather uncritically followed the overall strategy of the same brand of US FP orthodoxy that brought us the Bush decade of failure. He may have occasionally overruled them in a significant way - such as in Syria - but the overall strategy he still accepted. I think you could safely say that his politics abroad played a large part in bringing the festering protectionist-populist sentiment to the fore. In that environment Trump blossomed as a populist icon.
I wouldn't ignore finding a peaceful solution to Iran and finally opening relations with Cuba.
I wouldn't ascribe a worse US-Russia relation a failure of Obama so much as Putin not desiring a better relation to begin with. It takes 2 to tango.
His failure is the Middle-East, that's pretty undeniable tho imo he made a decent situation out of a shit turn of events for the US by bleeding ISIS out slowly. Tho it fucked up the region bad.
|
On July 25 2017 23:17 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2017 23:04 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On July 25 2017 21:34 Plansix wrote:
I'm confused by the article's premise, am I supposed to take the republicans seriously on Russia? No.... The republicans controlled congress for 6 year, didn't this also happen on their watch? What if the real answer is that winner takes all, win by any means necessary style politics is harmful to the nation as a whole? Congress doesn't do much foreign policy. The President has enormous powers to shape foreign policy according to his will. Unlike domestic policy, where he can't even technically propose legislation. But US presidential candidates spend the vast majority of their time discussing domestic policy, with very little attention paid to foreign policy, because most Americans can't find Afghanistan on a map, after we've been at war there for 17 years. My point is that Obama has no one but himself to blame for his own foreign policy failures. Most of them were caused by Obama making decisions in foreign affairs on the primary basis of what would play best to his audience back home, not on the basis of what would have the best long-term impact on the world. (for evidence of this, see Ben Rhodes's profile in the NYT.) Obama could have taken the Russian threat seriously at any point during his presidency. He chose not to because that would have damaged his domestic political narrative of a successful "reset" with the Russians. Keep in mind, the "reset" came months after Russia invaded Georgia. As the article I linked pointed out, the passage of the Magnitsky Act was opposed by Democrats, because additional sanctions on Russia for its horrible actions undermined the Official Narrative that the misspelled "reset" had worked. So instead Obama only woke up to join the fight at the 11th hour, when a greatly emboldened Russia began dramatically meddling in US domestic politics to the detriment of the Democratic party. Do I blame Obama for not taking the Russians seriously for a very long time, despite ample warnings, particularly after 2014? Absolutely. The current outcry from the Democrat party over the Russia scandal does have validity, because it is a huge freaking scandal. That being said, I am somewhat cynical concerning the motivations of Democratic politicians. "For their current criticisms of the Trump administration to carry water, liberals will have to do more than simply apologize for regurgitating Obama’s insult that Republicans are retrograde Cold Warriors. They will have to renounce pretty much the entire Obama foreign policy legacy, which both underestimated and appeased Russia at every turn. Otherwise, their grave intonations about 'active measures,' 'kompromat' and other Soviet-era phenomena will continue sounding opportunistic, and their protestations about Trump being a Russian stooge will continue to have the appearance of being motivated solely by partisan politics." You may have missed my opinions on the subject, but I don’t disagree that Obama had short comings. But Congress’s hands off foreign policy stance has been a huge problem for the US since 9/11. They have been more than happy to hand over that job to the oval office and heckle from the side lines. This has created a problem, since they all have no skin in the game anymore and limited investment. I will freely admit that Obama has failings in foreign policy. However, congress has theirs that I won’t let people heap on Obama’s lap. When congress voted down Obama’s request to strike Syria after they deployed chemical weapon, they might as well have set off a starter gun for people to challenge the US. Three months later Russia invaded Ukraine. Is it Obama’s fault for drawing the red line? Sure. But it is also congress’s fault for not having the president’s back, for being all too willing to put domestic political gain over backing the Commander and Chief. The president is no all powerful and does not have total control over US foreign policy. Congress should have greater involvement in that complicated issue, simple because that forces them to sell these foreign policy decisions to their district. The current dynamic of them using running against the foreign policy of the oval office is not acceptable and not healthy in the long term. These Russian hacks are just start of how dysfunctional thing could get. Edit: I am also deeply trouble by the attacks on Obama for not bringing up the Russian hacks during the election. The Republicans need to take a good look in the mirror and ask themselves why Obama was not comfortable doing that. I would love to live in the world where the president could come out with these revelations and the opposing part would take it all in good faith, but that is not the reality I live in. Again, it is easy to heckle once the hard decisions have been made.
I agree with you that Congress needs greater involvement in foreign policy. But...
Blaming Congress for Obama's failure to enforce the red line is silly. Obama had unilateral authority to launch strikes. I don't think Obama sought Congressional approval for any other military intervention during his term (most notably the monthslong Libya campaign).
Both Congress and Obama knew the public had no appetite for foreign intervention at the time. The only reason Obama went to Congress for the Syrian chemical weapons response was to do a political punt.
Obama didn't have a random moment in the middle of his term saying "Hey, maybe I should actually talk to Congress this time." He knew the move was unpopular, and he knew how Congress would vote. Going to Congress was a way to save some sort of face with the public over the issue.
|
On July 25 2017 23:30 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2017 23:17 Gorsameth wrote:On July 25 2017 23:04 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On July 25 2017 21:34 Plansix wrote:
I'm confused by the article's premise, am I supposed to take the republicans seriously on Russia? No.... The republicans controlled congress for 6 year, didn't this also happen on their watch? What if the real answer is that winner takes all, win by any means necessary style politics is harmful to the nation as a whole? Congress doesn't do much foreign policy. The President has enormous powers to shape foreign policy according to his will. Unlike domestic policy, where he can't even technically propose legislation. But US presidential candidates spend the vast majority of their time discussing domestic policy, with very little attention paid to foreign policy, because most Americans can't find Afghanistan on a map, after we've been at war there for 17 years. My point is that Obama has no one but himself to blame for his own foreign policy failures. Most of them were caused by Obama making decisions in foreign affairs on the primary basis of what would play best to his audience back home, not on the basis of what would have the best long-term impact on the world. (for evidence of this, see Ben Rhodes's profile in the NYT.) Obama could have taken the Russian threat seriously at any point during his presidency. He chose not to because that would have damaged his domestic political narrative of a successful "reset" with the Russians. Keep in mind, the "reset" came months after Russia invaded Georgia. As the article I linked pointed out, the passage of the Magnitsky Act was opposed by Democrats, because additional sanctions on Russia for its horrible actions undermined the Official Narrative that the misspelled "reset" had worked. So instead Obama only woke up to join the fight at the 11th hour, when a greatly emboldened Russia began dramatically meddling in US domestic politics to the detriment of the Democratic party. Do I blame Obama for not taking the Russians seriously for a very long time, despite ample warnings, particularly after 2014? Absolutely. The current outcry from the Democrat party over the Russia scandal does have validity, because it is a huge freaking scandal. That being said, I am somewhat cynical concerning the motivations of Democratic politicians. "For their current criticisms of the Trump administration to carry water, liberals will have to do more than simply apologize for regurgitating Obama’s insult that Republicans are retrograde Cold Warriors. They will have to renounce pretty much the entire Obama foreign policy legacy, which both underestimated and appeased Russia at every turn. Otherwise, their grave intonations about 'active measures,' 'kompromat' and other Soviet-era phenomena will continue sounding opportunistic, and their protestations about Trump being a Russian stooge will continue to have the appearance of being motivated solely by partisan politics." That is some damn impressive re-writing of history there. Obama's Russian reset? Are you for real? Last I checked Russia was hurting under economic sanctions put on by the EU and US under Obama. One side complains that the US is hurtling headlong into a new war with Russia while the other complains they were not hard enough, right up to the point where they themselves got in charge and then they were best friends with Russia all along... What do you think Obama should have done more? Should he have declared war? Should he have made sweeping moves to economically isolate Russia after the election so that everyone would complain he was 'abusing' his power like they already did? Because he can't do that before the crime is actually committed. What do you think the Democrats did not do enough of? Clearly nobody is actually, oh I don't know, READING the article I linked before commenting on it extensively. Show nested quote +Today’s liberal Russia hawks would have us believe that they’ve always been clear-sighted about Kremlin perfidy and mischief. They’re displaying amnesia not just over a single law but the entire foreign policy record of the Obama administration. From the reset, which it announced in early 2009 just months after Russia invaded Georgia, to its removal of missile defense systems in the Czech Republic and Poland later that year, to its ignoring Russia’s violations of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (while simultaneously negotiating New START) and its ceding the ground in Syria to Russian military intervention, the Obama administration’s Russia policy was one, protracted, eight-year-long concession to Moscow. Throughout his two terms in office, Obama played down the threat Russia posed to America’s allies, interests and values, and ridiculed those who warned otherwise. “The traditional divisions between nations of the south and the north make no sense in an interconnected world nor do alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long-gone Cold War,” Obama lectured the United Nations General Assembly in 2009, a more florid and verbose way of making the exact same criticism of supposed NATO obsolescence that liberals would later excoriate Trump for bluntly declaring. That's what I blame Obama for, helping get us into this mess. I'm not equating Obama to Trump, despite what reactionary partisan leftists here seem to think for no apparent reason. Show nested quote + And why would that even matter. No matter the mountain upon mountain of 'stuff' you think he should have done. None of it excuses the actions of the Republicans today. I never said that. The article I quoted never said that. This is a total strawman. Show nested quote +
Its the stupid notion that you cant criticize the fact that the President and his closest associates are in proven collusion with a foreign state that you yourself deem dangerous because they haven't kneeled before god and confessed their heinous crimes of not launching ww3 and ending the world in nuclear fire.
More strawmanning...
You might even conclude the "none of this excuses the actions of Republicans today" and "you can't criticize the fact that the President ..." means debaters are unwilling to shine a harsh light on Obama administration foreign policy and priorities. You must obviously be only examining his Russian action/inaction in light of wanting to excuse Trump and the GOP today ... lol.
Expect only a tepid one-line "don't worry fellas, I also blame Obama/Dems," when going on to detail all the ways Republicans share the blame and how the real story is the extent to which they dodged the blame or shared culpability.
It's all pretty transparent. US Reactive Partisanship Megathread.
|
On July 26 2017 00:03 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2017 23:30 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On July 25 2017 23:17 Gorsameth wrote:On July 25 2017 23:04 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On July 25 2017 21:34 Plansix wrote:
I'm confused by the article's premise, am I supposed to take the republicans seriously on Russia? No.... The republicans controlled congress for 6 year, didn't this also happen on their watch? What if the real answer is that winner takes all, win by any means necessary style politics is harmful to the nation as a whole? Congress doesn't do much foreign policy. The President has enormous powers to shape foreign policy according to his will. Unlike domestic policy, where he can't even technically propose legislation. But US presidential candidates spend the vast majority of their time discussing domestic policy, with very little attention paid to foreign policy, because most Americans can't find Afghanistan on a map, after we've been at war there for 17 years. My point is that Obama has no one but himself to blame for his own foreign policy failures. Most of them were caused by Obama making decisions in foreign affairs on the primary basis of what would play best to his audience back home, not on the basis of what would have the best long-term impact on the world. (for evidence of this, see Ben Rhodes's profile in the NYT.) Obama could have taken the Russian threat seriously at any point during his presidency. He chose not to because that would have damaged his domestic political narrative of a successful "reset" with the Russians. Keep in mind, the "reset" came months after Russia invaded Georgia. As the article I linked pointed out, the passage of the Magnitsky Act was opposed by Democrats, because additional sanctions on Russia for its horrible actions undermined the Official Narrative that the misspelled "reset" had worked. So instead Obama only woke up to join the fight at the 11th hour, when a greatly emboldened Russia began dramatically meddling in US domestic politics to the detriment of the Democratic party. Do I blame Obama for not taking the Russians seriously for a very long time, despite ample warnings, particularly after 2014? Absolutely. The current outcry from the Democrat party over the Russia scandal does have validity, because it is a huge freaking scandal. That being said, I am somewhat cynical concerning the motivations of Democratic politicians. "For their current criticisms of the Trump administration to carry water, liberals will have to do more than simply apologize for regurgitating Obama’s insult that Republicans are retrograde Cold Warriors. They will have to renounce pretty much the entire Obama foreign policy legacy, which both underestimated and appeased Russia at every turn. Otherwise, their grave intonations about 'active measures,' 'kompromat' and other Soviet-era phenomena will continue sounding opportunistic, and their protestations about Trump being a Russian stooge will continue to have the appearance of being motivated solely by partisan politics." That is some damn impressive re-writing of history there. Obama's Russian reset? Are you for real? Last I checked Russia was hurting under economic sanctions put on by the EU and US under Obama. One side complains that the US is hurtling headlong into a new war with Russia while the other complains they were not hard enough, right up to the point where they themselves got in charge and then they were best friends with Russia all along... What do you think Obama should have done more? Should he have declared war? Should he have made sweeping moves to economically isolate Russia after the election so that everyone would complain he was 'abusing' his power like they already did? Because he can't do that before the crime is actually committed. What do you think the Democrats did not do enough of? Clearly nobody is actually, oh I don't know, READING the article I linked before commenting on it extensively. Today’s liberal Russia hawks would have us believe that they’ve always been clear-sighted about Kremlin perfidy and mischief. They’re displaying amnesia not just over a single law but the entire foreign policy record of the Obama administration. From the reset, which it announced in early 2009 just months after Russia invaded Georgia, to its removal of missile defense systems in the Czech Republic and Poland later that year, to its ignoring Russia’s violations of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (while simultaneously negotiating New START) and its ceding the ground in Syria to Russian military intervention, the Obama administration’s Russia policy was one, protracted, eight-year-long concession to Moscow. Throughout his two terms in office, Obama played down the threat Russia posed to America’s allies, interests and values, and ridiculed those who warned otherwise. “The traditional divisions between nations of the south and the north make no sense in an interconnected world nor do alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long-gone Cold War,” Obama lectured the United Nations General Assembly in 2009, a more florid and verbose way of making the exact same criticism of supposed NATO obsolescence that liberals would later excoriate Trump for bluntly declaring. That's what I blame Obama for, helping get us into this mess. I'm not equating Obama to Trump, despite what reactionary partisan leftists here seem to think for no apparent reason. And why would that even matter. No matter the mountain upon mountain of 'stuff' you think he should have done. None of it excuses the actions of the Republicans today. I never said that. The article I quoted never said that. This is a total strawman.
Its the stupid notion that you cant criticize the fact that the President and his closest associates are in proven collusion with a foreign state that you yourself deem dangerous because they haven't kneeled before god and confessed their heinous crimes of not launching ww3 and ending the world in nuclear fire.
More strawmanning... You might even conclude the "none of this excuses the actions of Republicans today" and "you can't criticize the fact that the President ..." means debaters are unwilling to shine a harsh light on Obama administration foreign policy and priorities. You must obviously be only examining his Russian action/inaction in light of wanting to excuse Trump and the GOP today ... lol. Expect only a tepid one-line "don't worry fellas, I also blame Obama/Dems," when going on to detail all the ways Republicans share the blame and how the real story is the extent to which they dodged the blame or shared culpability. It's all pretty transparent. US Reactive Partisanship Megathread.
You can discuss Obama's foreign policy in isolation just fine, and this thread has done so plenty. The problem arise with opening sentences of "We can't take the Democrats seriously on Russia because Obama".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
