Obama says Russia acting 'barbarous' in Syria

[Jim in CT]

Seems to me that not long ago, Mitt Romney predicted that Putin was going to be an adversary needing to be dealt with. Also seems to me, that Obama mocked Romney for saying so, joking "the 1980's called, they want their foreign policy back".

Haw haw haw!

Obama...always wrong, yet never in doubt.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/russia-se...142318914.html

Spence?? Reaction??

[wdmso]

You love to see things that are not there dont you... care to explain how this is a problem for the US .. Russians carpet bombing Syria at the Syria request

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

You love to see things that are not there dont you... care to explain how this is a problem for the US .. Russians carpet bombing Syria at the Syria request

See, now you really stepped in it.

"I" didn't say this was a problem. Obama did. Read the link. He described it as barbarous, not me. So if you think it's stupid to see this as a concern, you are saying Obama is stupid, not me.

Have fun with that.

[spence]

It's interesting you see this tragedy and all the associated suffering as a "haw haw haw" moment.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

It's interesting you see this tragedy and all the associated suffering as a "haw haw haw" moment.

Yes because this is Jim's fault .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

It's interesting you see this tragedy and all the associated suffering as a "haw haw haw" moment.

The point, Spence, is that if he could get one right once in a while, even by accident, then maybe we could avoid some of the pain caused by his gaffes

For example, he said the 750B stimulus bill was going to keep unemployment below 8%. It didn't, as we all know. Maybe if he wasn't so sure that he was right and everyone else was wrong, we could have spent that 750B on things that would have helped somebody.

He said ISIS was the JV. If he wasn't so sure he was right and everyone else was wrong, maybe he would have directed more resources at hurting them earlier, which could have maybe thwarted one of their many successful attacks.

He said Obamacare was going to save the average family $2500 a year. If we knew how unbelievably ridiculous that claim was going to be, maybe some of us wouldn't be experiencing the huge rate hikes we are swallowing, which leave less money for food, rent, childcare, etc.

Not everybody is wealthy enough to casually laugh off the consequences of his mistakes.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by buckman

Yes because this is Jim's fault .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Right, because the issue isn't that our POTUS is always wrong, but rather, the tone with which I point that out.

[Jim in CT]

The State Dept announced today, that because of the way Russia is acting in Syria, it is suspending bilateral contacts with Russia.

Who was it, again, who said this to Mitt Romney, for speculating that Russia would be an adversary?

"The 1980s called! They want their foreign policy back!""

Atta boy, Columbo. Atta boy!!

Obama...always wrong, never in doubt.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...10-03-13-41-42

And the Democrats want to replace him, with someone whose judgment is so appalling, that she didn't believe that the patron saint to infidelity was cheating on her...rather, it made more sense to Hilary, to accuse the GOP of framing her poor husband, who naturally is innocent as a newborn kitten.

[JohnR]

I have a lot of issues with what is going WRT Russia (and has been for a while). Whilke I cannot believe I am going to say this, I think Hillary could deal with this better than Trump. DJT has become a low grade tool of Putin lately.

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by JohnR

I have a lot of issues with what is going WRT Russia (and has been for a while). Whilke I cannot believe I am going to say this, I think Hillary could deal with this better than Trump. DJT has become a low grade tool of Putin lately.

How has Trump become a tool for Putin?
Disregard if I should not be participating I am not trying to rock the boat, just wondering how this connection between Trump and Putin has developed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by ecduzitgood

How has Trump become a tool for Putin?
Disregard if I should not be participating I am not trying to rock the boat, just wondering how this connection between Trump and Putin has developed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not all - the point was just start less threads.

OK - Putin, for years, has been doing a lot to split governments and political factions withing governments. He has done it much over Europe and the Middle East. Russia has massive organized fake and government controlled new sites and trolls going out to sow discord, particularly on social media.

Trump has repeated beliefs and sayings in alignment with Putin and stuff frequently seen on RT and other places. I know it seems a little, umm, extreme but this has been accelerating as of late.

Many serious NatSec folks have gone on record of steering clear of Trump.

Plus he is simply not serious. He is a charlatan realty TV person.

So we have a choice between the Criminal and the Charlatan - I am choosing other

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Not all - the point was just start less threads.

OK - Putin, for years, has been doing a lot to split governments and political factions withing governments. He has done it much over Europe and the Middle East. Russia has massive organized fake and government controlled new sites and trolls going out to sow discord, particularly on social media.

Trump has repeated beliefs and sayings in alignment with Putin and stuff frequently seen on RT and other places. I know it seems a little, umm, extreme but this has been accelerating as of late.

Many serious NatSec folks have gone on record of steering clear of Trump.

Plus he is simply not serious. He is a charlatan realty TV person.

So we have a choice between the Criminal and the Charlatan - I am choosing other

I don't believe I have posted any "Russian propaganda" and fail to see how Trump is connected to Russia using social media.

I am not sure what RT is but perhaps you could provide a link or examples of what Trump has said.

Charlatan who wants to enforce laws we have and not change the constitution. I don't think charlatan fits Trump who has managed to be successful in the system the way it is rigged for lack of a better term. He also employs thousands of people of many different races and sexes so the lefts attempts at labeling him a racist or sexist is nonsense.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...iuliani-226811
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by ecduzitgood

I don't believe I have posted any "Russian propaganda" and fail to see how Trump is connected to Russia using social media.

I am not sure what RT is but perhaps you could provide a link or examples of what Trump has said.

Charlatan who wants to enforce laws we have and not change the constitution. I don't think charlatan fits Trump who has managed to be successful in the system the way it is rigged for lack of a better term. He also employs thousands of people of many different races and sexes so the lefts attempts at labeling him a racist or sexist is nonsense.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...iuliani-226811
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I never said you posted it - I said Trump has stated things that are straight from RT (RussiaTimes) which is the Kremlin Controlled Media.

Many of his advisors have had close ties to Russia; Manafort, Flynn, for example. He benefits from WikiLeaks and Assange, a clear and fairly well documented Russian front. Hell, InfoWars is not above possible ties to Russia

[ecduzitgood]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...s-russia-ties/


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...ow-speech.html

What exactly is he going to do for Russia that an easy button couldn't do?

And let's not forget who is Hillary's right hand...

http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripert...97#post1106697

This doesn't seem Russia friendly...

http://www.infowars.com/russia-posit...s-from-alaska/


One other thing to consider is which do you think would be easier to impeach?

Imagine what Hillary would be doing with drones..."can't we just drone this guy" (2010 Secretary of state Hillary Clinton in reference to wiki leaks founder Julian Assauge)

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnR

I have a lot of issues with what is going WRT Russia (and has been for a while). Whilke I cannot believe I am going to say this, I think Hillary could deal with this better than Trump. DJT has become a low grade tool of Putin lately.

Although Presidents have the last word, they usually rely on their advisers on various issues. Trump has always consulted experts in his business dealings, rather then merely relying on his own judgment. Although he does like to take credit for what others have done for him. I strongly suspect he would do the same as President. I'd think that Hillary would do the same. Though she was more personally in charge of her affairs as SecState. There's no strong evidence that she was successful at that. Could she pull off another "successful" Russian reset?

And as a "charlatan," Trump could lull Putin into agreements with the confidence that Trump is an unserious fool. All the while, however, gaining advantage for the U.S. Sort of another way of making a deal. Sort of being dumb as a fox.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnR

I never said you posted it - I said Trump has stated things that are straight from RT (RussiaTimes) which is the Kremlin Controlled Media.

Many of his advisors have had close ties to Russia; Manafort, Flynn, for example. He benefits from WikiLeaks and Assange, a clear and fairly well documented Russian front. Hell, InfoWars is not above possible ties to Russia

don't forget Ted Kennedy ...and that was apparently not a problem...Spence could probably explain how it was brilliant and an asset in fact...

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Could she pull off another "successful" Russian reset?

And as a "charlatan," Trump could lull Putin into agreements with the confidence that Trump is an unserious fool. All the while, however, gaining advantage for the U.S. Sort of another way of making a deal. Sort of being dumb as a fox.

well, Spence assured us that everything Obama was doing with regard to Russia, Syria, Iran, China was actually part of a masterful plan so complex and brilliant that none of us could possibly understand the brilliance or complexity....seems to be working out so well he'll masterfully leave a huge mess for his successor to "inherit" (miles of irony there) not to mention the eminent collapse of his "signature achievement" Obamacare....and.... I think the seas are still rising.....but I hear his golf game has improved....don't know how..I've seen his stroke....you'd think with that much practice????

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Although Presidents have the last word, they usually rely on their advisers on various issues. Trump has always consulted experts in his business dealings, rather then merely relying on his own judgment. Although he does like to take credit for what others have done for him. I strongly suspect he would do the same as President. I'd think that Hillary would do the same. Though she was more personally in charge of her affairs as SecState. There's no strong evidence that she was successful at that. Could she pull off another "successful" Russian reset?

And as a "charlatan," Trump could lull Putin into agreements with the confidence that Trump is an unserious fool. All the while, however, gaining advantage for the U.S. Sort of another way of making a deal. Sort of being dumb as a fox.

I have no reason to believe that Trump would be any better than the low bar Obama set for picking advisors, let alone the low bar of actually listening to them.

Originally Posted by scottw

don't forget Ted Kennedy ...and that was apparently not a problem...Spence could probably explain how it was brilliant and an asset in fact...

Two wrongs don't improve a doofus

Originally Posted by scottw

well, Spence assured us that everything Obama was doing with regard to Russia, Syria, Iran, China was actually part of a masterful plan so complex and brilliant that none of us could possibly understand the brilliance or complexity....seems to be working out so well he'll masterfully leave a huge mess for his successor to "inherit" (miles of irony there) not to mention the eminent collapse of his "signature achievement" Obamacare....and.... I think the seas are still rising.....but I hear his golf game has improved....don't know how..I've seen his stroke....you'd think with that much practice????

Obama has been the worst foreign policy president since maybe Johnson.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnR

I have no reason to believe that Trump would be any better than the low bar Obama set for picking advisors, let alone the low bar of actually listening to them.



Two wrongs don't improve a doofus



Obama has been the worst foreign policy president since maybe Johnson.

"I have no reason to believe that Trump would be any better than the low bar Obama set for picking advisors"

Trump has chosen Mike Pence, Newt Gingrich, and Rudy Guiliani to be among his closest advisors. Gingrich wrote the last budget that generated a surplus. Guliani was an amazing mayor of NYC during a brutal time. I take some comfort in knowing those accomplished guys are advising Trump, who desperately needs good advice.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"I have no reason to believe that Trump would be any better than the low bar Obama set for picking advisors"

Trump has chosen Mike Pence, Newt Gingrich, and Rudy Guiliani to be among his closest advisors. Gingrich wrote the last budget that generated a surplus. Guliani was an amazing mayor of NYC during a brutal time. I take some comfort in knowing those accomplished guys are advising Trump, who desperately needs good advice.

Great, three conspiracy peddlers. I hope you're not serious.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Didn't Rudy Giuliani say that under George W. Bush there was never a terrorist attack on American soil ? Talk about a brain trust
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Didn't Rudy Giuliani say that under George W. Bush there was never a terrorist attack on American soil ? Talk about a brain trust
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you really believe, that Rudy Guiliani isn't aware that 09/11 happened? If he said that, he meant that subsequent to 9/11, there were no attacks on our soil.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Great, three conspiracy peddlers. I hope you're not serious.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As opposed to Obama, who told America that John McCain was going to try and make people afraid of the fact that he's black.

Or as opposed to Hilary, who says that half of the people who disagree with her are deplorable hatemongers.

Gingrich and Bill Clinton did amazing things for this country, things that actually helped huge numbers of people.

Guliani cut violent crime tremendously in NYC, which saved thousands of black lives.

Have you no shame, Spence? Have you no shame?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

As opposed to Obama, who told America that John McCain was going to try and make people afraid of the fact that he's black.

Or as opposed to Hilary, who says that half of the people who disagree with her are deplorable hatemongers.

Gingrich and Bill Clinton did amazing things for this country, things that actually helped huge numbers of people.

Guliani cut violent crime tremendously in NYC, which saved thousands of black lives.

Have you no shame, Spence? Have you no shame?

Spence just likes to use the word "conspiracy." Even if its not applicable, he likes to throw it into the mix. No doubt he's trying to jinn up a conspiracy that Pence, Giuliani, and Gingrich are peddling conspiracies.

Maybe Spence is a conspiracy peddler.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnR

I have no reason to believe that Trump would be any better than the low bar Obama set for picking advisors, let alone the low bar of actually listening to them.

Obama has been the worst foreign policy president since maybe Johnson.

Obama picked Hillary as his principle adviser on foreign policy. Does that mean that she has the worst foreign policy record since maybe Johnson? What does that say about her ability to pick a good adviser? Or worse, that she wouldn't listen to him/her, but act on her own in foreign affairs? And that Trump would choose somebody even worse? In which case, maybe, he would be better not to listen to him/her. Is it really a fact that Trump doesn't listen to advisers, or is that just one of those many negative characterizations of him?

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Obama picked Hillary as his principle adviser on foreign policy. Does that mean that she has the worst foreign policy record since maybe Johnson? What does that say about her ability to pick a good adviser? Or worse, that she wouldn't listen to him/her, but act on her own in foreign affairs? And that Trump would choose somebody even worse? In which case, maybe, he would be better not to listen to him/her. Is it really a fact that Trump doesn't listen to advisers, or is that just one of those many negative characterizations of him?

She is probably responsible for the better of the two horrible halves of ForPol for Obama (I shouted from the Rooftops he was not qualified - wish I was wrong).


If Trump was efficient and calculating rather than the unfiltered impulsive tool we would not have experienced the disarrayed sheitshow we have been subject to over the past 8 months. He has shown very little capacity for policy - he makes up crap as he goes.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnR

He (Trump) has shown very little capacity for policy - he makes up crap as he goes.

That is true.

Spence, Obama has also used Al Sharpton as one of his go-to advisors on racial issues, which goes a long way towards explaining why racial tensions got so much worse over the last 8 years.

You wouldn't describe Sharpton as a conspiracy nut?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Obama picked Hillary as his principle adviser on foreign policy. Does that mean that she has the worst foreign policy record since maybe Johnson?

Team Effort

“They don’t want this stuff to come out because it will look really bad for Obama and Clinton just before the election,” said the associate.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/1...clinton-229115

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnR

She is probably responsible for the better of the two horrible halves of ForPol for Obama (I shouted from the Rooftops he was not qualified - wish I was wrong).

That's reassuring--the better half of horrible.

If Trump was efficient and calculating rather than the unfiltered impulsive tool we would not have experienced the disarrayed sheitshow we have been subject to over the past 8 months. He has shown very little capacity for policy - he makes up crap as he goes.

What very little I know about whether he is unfiltered or impulsive, or whether he is not efficient nor calculating--that little I know points out how he had to consider and effect the various calculations needed to thread his way through the bureaucracy of the levels of government from local to federal, and around the barriers and pitfalls of dealing with tough unions and various labor problems in order to accomplish his real estate missions. Had he been an unfiltered impulsive tool lacking in efficiency and unable to calculate, his initial failures would have been the end of it all.

He seems to have been more of a visionary of possibility and an administrator over others who could make the vision happen. He consistently sought the advice and assistance of those who knew the "what and how" that was needed to get it done.

His capacity for policy was the big picture of what he wanted done and the ability to delegate the getting done to others who knew how to do it. Which, to a great deal, is the function of a President.

As far as sheitshows go, political campaigns are the height of such. Usually they are full of stilted, invidious, calculations full of half-truths and lies, and usually they are far more boring than this one. And they are so sheity that everyone can hardly wait till they are over. A little, or a lot, of spontaneity, no matter how awkward, perks things up.