It's not just Pearl Harbor, it's also 9/11

[homersapien 11,374]

12 hours ago, japantiger said:

Aw Homey...we actually have common ground here....circumstances do change...

Obama was so naive he didn't believe Russia was a serious adversary and openly mocked anyone who did.  His sent his equally hapless and  incompetent Sec of State out on a half-assed and misspelled effort to suck up to Russia (my God; she was such an idiot she didn't even know what the damn button said) ; stood idly by while Russia reacted to his effete foreign policy by overrunning the Crimea, entered the Ukraine; helped Assad defy his Syria red-line; promised them "more flexibility after an election" and then when they attacked our electoral system Obama chose inaction for some inexplicable reason.  The foundation of our democracy is attacked; and the man who constitutionally is charged with protecting us; sets on his hands and doesn't lift a finger.  And finally, after the horse was well out of the barn; and two weeks before he left office; after 8 years of giving Putin hand jobs; Obama decided it was time to impose sanctions. 

So far, Trump has imposed sanctions, expelled diplomats and spies, shut down consulates, given $240m of funds to the Ukraine to kill Russians and we have killed hundreds of Russians that attacked our forces in Syria.   

So yeah, times are pretty different.  The former president appeased the Russians in 8 years of interactions.  The other is both funding our allies who can kill Russians with the arms we are giving them and is outright killing Russians;  while he starts his own dialogue with Putin.  Which one do you think has Putin's attention?    Let me give you a hint; I hear he listens more to people who use correct spelling....

First, Obama didn't "mock everyone" regarding Russia, he mocked Romney.  This was long before the Crimean annexation and way before any known election hacking.  But as it turns out, Romney was right and Obama was wrong.  (Just as the "red line" statement was wrong - terribly wrong.)  But again, times change.  It's fun to cherry-pick mistakes made years ago under different circumstances but it has relatively little bearing on today's situation and events.  Things change.

Secondly, if Hillary is so naive and soft on Russian, how did she and Putin become such enemies? Why did Putin try to defeat her by supporting Trump if she's such a pushover?  His hate for Hillary is apparent.  When did that relationship go sour?  Things change

Obama imposed sanctions, Trump imposed sanctions (only Trump balked at them.)  Obama supplied military support to Ukraine, Trump increased that military support.  Obama came under a lot of criticsm for being too soft and cautious about Ukraine and there is no doubt Putin took advantage.  The coinciding crises in Syria and with ISSL didn't help. But that's no excuse.  Obama was really really cautious about military involvement.  Depending on outcomes, I suppose that can be a fault. Probably wouldn't have had that problem with Hillary though.

Regardless Putin means to take Ukraine back given half a chance. I have no idea how or when Ukraine gets resolved, but unless the US approaches it with a strong coalition of allies - primarily the EU - we are left in a bilateral proxy war with Russia. One that Putin will be only ready to fight. 

Our upping the arms assistance to Ukraine probably buys us some time holding Putin off, but it's not going to solve the problem.  Without serious leverage from a coalition of "western" economic powers, Putin will wait us out no matter how long it takes (see Viet Nam). 

I simply don't see Trump developing a strong coalition against Putin.  If anything, he's doing just the opposite. He's straining our alliances.

Finally, if Trump is so tough on Russia, please explain his performance in Helsinki.  Trump is either crazy or Putin really has the goods on him.  I'm inclined to think both.

[homersapien 11,374]

On 7/21/2018 at 1:15 PM, Auburn85 said:

In my opinion, I would argue that this is more closer to Nixon not challenging the 1960 election despite the possible vote discrepancies in Illinois. Even had Nixon won Illinois, Kennedy would have still won.

I agree Russia tried to influence our election. I believe that the decision  to meddle came from higher ups in Russian authority. But I also believe it had little effect on the outcome.

Russia didn't influence these decisions: 

Clinton never visited Wisconsin.

Clinton spent $2 million in campaign ads in Texas

Clinton spent resources in cities such as Chicago and New Orleans to push the vote total higher. Not focused on elector college wins but rather popular vote overall. Obviously, neither Illinois or Louisiana  was a swing state.

Clinton sent Kaine to Arizona to  a Spanish speaking rally.

James Comey deciding on the eve of the election to come out and say what he said.

I agree with the notion that the media gave Trump over a $billion in free air time. But I don't buy that is was all positive air time. When someone buys campaign air time for their own campaign, they aren't going to run self-negative ads and do the dirty work for their opponent.

In that $1 billion worth of free air time it also  included : The pu**y tape, the pee tape, discrimination lawsuits, bankruptcies, being on his 3rd marriage, and so forth. All fair game, but no way I'm counting that in the tally of free air time, as if it was to his advantage.

Then you completely don't get the whole publicity/reality show thing.

That kind of stuff simply reinforced the 'motivated reasoning' capacity of Trump supporters.  Hell, it reinforced their support. 

 

And whatever the Russians didn't influence is hardly relevant.

 

[japantiger 4,051]

10 hours ago, homersapien said:

First, Obama didn't "mock everyone" regarding Russia, he mocked Romney.  This was long before the Crimean annexation and way before any known election hacking.  But as it turns out, Romney was right and Obama was wrong.  (Just as the "red line" statement was wrong - terribly wrong.)  But again, times change.  It's fun to cherry-pick mistakes made years ago under different circumstances but it has relatively little bearing on today's situation and events.  Things change.

Secondly, if Hillary is so naive and soft on Russian, how did she and Putin become such enemies? Why did Putin try to defeat her by supporting Trump if she's such a pushover?  His hate for Hillary is apparent.  When did that relationship go sour?  Things change

Obama imposed sanctions, Trump imposed sanctions (only Trump balked at them.)  Obama supplied military support to Ukraine, Trump increased that military support.  Obama came under a lot of criticsm for being too soft and cautious about Ukraine and there is no doubt Putin took advantage.  The coinciding crises in Syria and with ISSL didn't help. But that's no excuse.  Obama was really really cautious about military involvement.  Depending on outcomes, I suppose that can be a fault. Probably wouldn't have had that problem with Hillary though.

Regardless Putin means to take Ukraine back given half a chance. I have no idea how or when Ukraine gets resolved, but unless the US approaches it with a strong coalition of allies - primarily the EU - we are left in a bilateral proxy war with Russia. One that Putin will be only ready to fight. 

Our upping the arms assistance to Ukraine probably buys us some time holding Putin off, but it's not going to solve the problem.  Without serious leverage from a coalition of "western" economic powers, Putin will wait us out no matter how long it takes (see Viet Nam). 

I simply don't see Trump developing a strong coalition against Putin.  If anything, he's doing just the opposite. He's straining our alliances.

Finally, if Trump is so tough on Russia, please explain his performance in Helsinki.  Trump is either crazy or Putin really has the goods on him.  I'm inclined to think both.

I like your response here Homey....thanks.  

1st, I'm not cherry picking mistakes...I'm describing another series of actions in the pathology/pattern of Obama's approach to foreign policy.  His approach to every foreign policy matter was to ignore history and human nature.  Russia's not a threat; Islamic bortherhood  isn't a threat; Iran isn't a threat; ISiS isn't a threat; "insert-foe-he's-afraid-to-deal-with" isn't a threat.  He absolutely refused to address the world as it is and weaved snide bromides for his foes as to why these folks were just really misunderstood and not the animals history has shown them to be. (Hey, the 80's called and wants it's foreign policy back; ISiS is just the JV team; ad nauseam).

Obama didn't arm the Ukraine, he sent them blankets and boots....in spite of strong bipartisan support to send them "lethal aid".   Obama's misfortune in the Ukraine was his own creation; and the excuse you try to throw in that somehow the "coinciding crisis" in Syria and with ISiS made it hard to fix...well, who created the crisis in Syria and with ISiS?   He did!  He has no one to blame but himself for failing simultaneously on 3 fronts of his own creation.  He employed the same approach in all three places...send an ineffective diplomat to a region they know nothing about with no plan and give them no leverage to use.....what could possibly go wrong with that approach (it was a rhetorical question).

We don't need a coalition against Putin.  He's not afraid of anyone but us.   He has Germany by the gas pump...we have what we need from them already (airfields, logistics support, etc.).  Economic leverage will come from us being the #1 oil producer in the world and offering the Europeans an alternative to Russian oil.  As to Helsinki, the left has said the same s*** after every other foreign policy move by any president in my lifetime... Reykjavik was a disaster, Vienna was a disaster,Singapore was a disaster...blah...blah...blah...time will tell what comes of Helsinki.  All I know is NK hasn't done anything in 10 months and is now dismantling missile production sites....Putin hasn't done anything in 1.5 years...well, I take that back....he's stopped supporting chemical weapons attacks in Syria after we bombed them and I'm pretty sure he's hasn't attacked any more of our troops or surrogates in Syria since we killed a few hundred of his guys there..  He respects only one thing....he's a snake....you have to show a snake you mean business. You don't do that by fancy talk and high flying platitudes.  He will cause less trouble if he understands we won't take any s*** by our actions.  Killing his guys and his surrogates is a good way to make your point.  He will never be an ally...but it would be good if we can work on common interests (like fighting Islamic militants, containing Iran, etc.).  I'll give Trump time on that.   The left and rights alternatives of the last 2 decades gave us the mess we have today.