it's hilarious that the russian thing was no big deal, being blown way out of proportion, but obama is chamberlain 2.0 for not dealing with it.
The policy and politics of Trumpism
- Thread starter CharminTide
- Start date
- Status
I guess it depends on which Russian thing is the topic of discussion. The phrase has become a bit of a catchall.
Let's ask Ras what he would've done if he felt the election was unjust due to the Russians....
Action, inaction, and reaction to inaction..
point is that neither the Democratic party nor Obama ever felt it was a huge deal until she lost. Yeah here and there were some interests about the possibility, but noone was screaming from the top of the One World Trade Center Building about it until after the election. Even then it wasnt the immediate excuse. The immediate excuse was Comey, racism, and sexism.
As for the Chamberlain thing, him and Obama are just alike. Both believed that the world powers will act in a gentle-manlike manner, and people will always make the right decision on their own. It is more of a "good intentions but bad result'" title. He was more an idealist than a realist. He did inspire hope in a very difficult time, but he said the wrong things at the wrong times, and took loose treaties with Hitler and de Velera when he shouldve made concrete ones or either shouldve had a solid plan B when they broke those treaties.
If you want my honest opinion about Obama then I would say he is better than dubya and Trump,but that doesnt make him a great president or great at foriegn policy
Last edited:
I think that's disingenuous. Obama clearly thought it was a big deal. He tasked multiple investigations into the what, why, and how of Russia's hacking attempts. Once he had damning information, he gathered the leaders of both parties and asked for bipartisan condemnation, which was rebuked strongly and immediately by McConnell.
The reality is that both Obama and Comey made the gamble that Clinton was likely to win, and that literally anything they did during the election that could be perceived as anti-Trump by Breitfox would spark the partisan powder keg that had been building over the years. McConnell's promise to turn anything Obama said publicly into a partisan fecalstorm is Exhibit A. And Exhibit B is Comey's public hearing, where he basically admitted that he sent the Wiener email update knowing it would be leaked by the GOP, believing it wouldn't affect the election, and based entirely on the calculation that if he'd said nothing and it leaked after the election (which is a certainty), it would do far more damage to the country and credibility of the FBI. Obviously, they both lost that gamble and would probably do things differently with the clarity of hindsight. Comey's letter alone may have pushed Trump to victory. But to claim that no one cared about Russia until after Clinton lost is just inaccurate.
Nope its pretty telling when Obama isnt speaking on it to the public. The only thing that Obama did say was the same stuff Clinton did and that was " Trump was a bigot, racist, womanizer, unhinged, liar, sexist, xenophobe, con artist that wasnt fit to be president.". The only thing either of them ever really said about Russia-Trump was when he did his "Russia if you are listening..." speech, but after that it was back to 'lovely' titles game. Heck even YTY didnt hammer on the possible connection until the transition period,and they are the biggest left wing conspiracy theorist.
it was being talked about quite a lot. hillary called him out on it in one of the debates prompting him to say "no puppet, you're the puppet". there were 2-3 resignations (manafort, page and one other i think) based around the issue. but the liberal media spent all of their time talking about emails and chasing around the trump side show.Let's ask Ras what he would've done if he felt the election was unjust due to the Russians....
Action, inaction, and reaction to inaction..
point is that neither the Democratic party nor Obama ever felt it was a huge deal until she lost. Yeah here and there were some interests about the possibility, but noone was screaming from the top of the One World Trade Center Building about it until after the election. Even then it wasnt the immediate excuse. The immediate excuse was Comey, racism, and sexism.
As for the Chamberlain thing, him and Obama are just alike. Both believed that the world powers will act in a gentle-manlike manner, and people will always make the right decision on their own. It is more of a "good intentions but bad result'" title. He was more an idealist than a realist. He did inspire hope in a very difficult time, but he said the wrong things at the wrong times, and took loose treaties with Hitler and de Velera when he shouldve made concrete ones or either shouldve had a solid plan B when they broke those treaties.
If you want my honest opinion about Obama then I would say he is better than dubya and Trump,but that doesnt make him a great president or great at foriegn policy
It's telling only that he's following the practice of past presidents in not discussing recent internal affairs. How much could he say that's not classified, anyway?
He can have it declassified as the president of the United States. Even if he didn't he spent a whole year and a half whining about Putin in Crimea and Syria, and then a presidential candidate starts threatening all of the accomplishments in his administration and possibly has ties to Russia why stop then. If he truly had reason to believe that the Russians could have a puppet in the White House why jeopardize the fate of the republic on sportsmanship, and a gamble?
Well, first, he's not president and he can't declassify anything. Second, it's very doubtful that declassifying anything back then would have been the right answer and your statement about jeopardizing the the fate of the republic makes no sense. I get it you don't like the guy but you need to stop talking past me and tell me in concrete terms what you think he should have done, if that's what you now want to switch the discussion to. All I answered was your statement that "its pretty telling when Obama isnt speaking on it to the public." My answer was correct - presidents, even the worst of them, just don't do that. Period...
Last edited:
Well first he needed to tell Hilliary and her folks to stop being careless with emails especially if they intended to screw over Bernie since the mook that is probably challenging her has said very favorable things about Putin in the debate at the Reagan library.
Second he needed to tell her to don't bother trading blows with a Jerry Seinfeld wannabe comedian, and instead focus on working class white workers in the rust belt
Third he had no blasting Putin and Russian shenanigans from 2014 to 2016 on practically any and every thing, but he all of the sudden can't leak or declassify that the Russians are taking a direct involvement in our election. It may or may not have worked, but if he had then this isn't looking like sour grapes from democrats.
Point is for weeks after the election democrats and anti trumpers blamed it on Comey, the EC, racist alt-righters, sexists, religious nuts, and xenophobes. It really wasn't until leaks came out that they really cared about what the Kremlin and Trump Tower were possibly doing. Hilliary was far and away the biggest reason they lost, not the Russians.
Well, let's back up to where this started. You made the statement that the fact that Obama wasn't talking to the public about the matter was telling. I consider that a silly statement and pointed out that presidents don't do that. You decided not to challenge nor argue that point. Fine. Then you hit me with all this wild speculation about what Obama might have done. I don't care to argue that with you because I don't think either of us has enough information to argue intelligently. IOW, a waste of time. I don't pretend to know what he either could or should have done, so carry on as long as you wish. I'm just not your straw man and I won't reply to any more off-topic statements...
Okay the statement you are referring to is meant to say "democrats weren't really harping on the issue of Russian intervention when they thought it was in the bag". Had it been a huge issue to them during the election you would've thought it would've been coming out of everyone of the democrat leadership's mouth on a daily basis because it could've done some real damage to a fragile campaign. Im more saying that Hilliary destroyed herself more than any Russian hacker or controversial FBI director and they are over exaggerating those two events to lessen their embarrassment of losing to the great cheeto
If it is found that trump did broker a deal with the Russians during the election then I hope he gets whatever he deserves if it was illegal
Fwiw I don't hate Obama. I just got annoyed by his second term. I voted for him against Romney because Romney was basically the Republican John Kerry ( no platform candidate). Personally I think all in all he is the best president since Ronald.
I totally agree that Clinton was the biggest reason for the Democrats loss, that should be the end of any discussion of her campaign. At this point it is no longer about Clinton, it is about whether or not Trump and/or his surrogates knew of and accepted Russian involvement that aided in his campaign and election. If Trump and his surrogates had no involvement with the Russians in the election then they should welcome Mueller's investigation to clear any doubt once and for all and get on with the business of governing our country.
We are coming closer to agreement. IF Obama had been able to get bipartisan agreement, then something in the way of government pronouncement might have helped. Naturally, turtlehead wouldn't go along, because he perceived, correctly, it was more likely to help Hillary more, and the mantra was "win at all costs." Whatever Obama did unilaterally was likely to hurt Hillary more than help. It was a huge conundrum and I don't blame them for doing almost nothing. Yes, they thought Hillary would win anyway, but I'm not sure what they could have done in any event. The real answer is cyber counter-warfare. That's hard for a free society against autocracy. At the very least, our national defenses need to be ramped up. Now is this likely with a president who would like to buddy up to Putin, who owes hundreds of millions to Putin's buddies and who, just possibly, might have received his boost over the top by Putin's help? Not likely, to say the least. I see our butts being in a crack, in more than one way.
As far as Obama is concerned, I view him as a mixed bag. I do think his foreign policy, particularly in the second term, as being a disaster, just not the disaster we seem to be heading into. Unlike many here, I think he is an honest, honorable man. OTOH, so was Jimmy Carter...
The 2016 election, like the 1968 and 1992 elections mark a major sea change in the electorate.
1968 was about the loss of the south for the democrats and the disillusion with the ideas of Roosevelt held by the greatest generation.
1992 was about the loss of california for the republicans. (The dems may have won there a time or two, but it was mostly GOP between 68-92) (Kennedy's 1965 immigration bill was beginning to bear fruit)
2016 was about the loss of the midwest (From Pennsylvania to Wisconsin) for the dems and the shift to the right of Baby Boomers (Their disillusionment with socially-liberal capitalism)
That's an interesting proposition and may very well prove to be true, but still too early for a definitive declaration, IMHO.
I agree. It may very well be true. OTOH, if Trump doesn't bring back the mining and factory jobs he promised them, will they stick with him or is it just a one-election shift? Time will tell...
- Status
Latest threads
-
SEC West Showdown Sends Alabama to Oxford to Meet with Ole Miss- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Davis II Named to Stopper of the Year Midseason Watch List
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Eleven-Run Third Powers Alabama to 14-5 Win over Samford
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Maybe aTm's Pockets Aren't So Bottomless After All -- Layoffs In The Athletic Department
- Started by 4Q Basket Case
- Replies: 9
-
Time to un-vacate 2005-2007 on field victories and un-forfeit the 1993 season?
- Started by CmdrThor
- Replies: 24
-