• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why was Obama so gutless as to not confront Putin about election interference?

zimmer said:
And why did he lie to the American people about the involvement?
Click to expand...

Why are Trump supporters so gutless that they will try any and every excuse to defend their hero's love affair with Putin?
 
ataraxia said:
All very true. But remember, Trump was threatening to incite his deplorable supporters to violence and questioning the integrity of the entire US electoral system if he lost. If he lost, he had said that that would mean the system was rigged and he was going to get the mobs out on to the street.. Remember he had said “beat the Sh-t out them, I will cover your legal fees.”

Obama did not really think that Trump was going to win. Americans aren’t really that low class and stupid, are they? Inciting a bunch of hot-headed, ignorant, paranoid mobs to violence and mayhem by bringing this issue up at that time may have created some serious problems. It was a reasonable, calculated risk. But like all calculated risks, there is always the potential for it not working out.

It didn’t.
Click to expand...

I do not disagree with your analysis. I would like know when Obama will stop bring a pillow to a gun fight?
 
zimmer said:
And why did he lie to the American people about the involvement?
Click to expand...

Too close to the election to alarm Americans. You already know this though.

Another partisan zimmer thread. yawn
 
OlNate said:
Ya, seriously, these guys aren't even being subtle about it anymore.

No matter what Obama did, he didn't face **** Putin like Trump did, so stop embarrassing yourselves. Maybe sort that out, then go work on the cold case files - cold being things not related to what your president is doing right now.
Click to expand...

You're right Nate....Obama got screwed by every Imam in Iran.

Putin just bent him over on occasion for a reach around.
 
zimmer said:
And why did he lie to the American people about the involvement?
Click to expand...
Obama's relative inaction, and his acquiescence to DoJ and Congress' desire to keep the scope of Russian interference and the investigation into potential Trump campaign involvement largely from the public before the election concluded, is definitely a mark against him.

But the honest answer is that Obama, DoJ, and his entire team thought Trump stood little chance of winning and therefore (1) didn't want to be in a position to be accused of assisting what they viewed as a near-certain Clinton victory, and (2) simply didn't think the Russian attacks mattered enough to rock an election whose conclusion they viewed as all but foregone. That's not to say that they wouldn't have gotten more aggressive and revealed the details that have since been divulged after a Hillary victory. But they didn't see the point of doing so during the election.
 
RetiredUSN said:
You're right Nate....Obama got screwed by every Imam in Iran.

Putin just bent him over on occasion for a reach around.
Click to expand...

lol...link to a video as embarrassing as the other day's. You good with your president kissing Russia's ass, RetiredUSN? I'm curious to understand how a retired serviceman feels about this...also, what years did you serve? Just trying to get a little perspective... And before you go off about Obama, save the typing, I understand you're not a fan... ;) I feel like you're up to answering a direct question, but whataboutery is a habit for lots of us these days...
 
haymarket said:
I do not disagree with your analysis. I would like know when Obama will stop bring a pillow to a gun fight?
Click to expand...

Unlike some politicians these days, I really think keeping the country together was more important to him than personal or partisan gain. If he and his pillow get shot in the gunfight (which they did, obviously), well then that was a price he was apparently willing to pay.

If voters make a mistake, they will eventually learn from the consequences. But a country in open civil war is a harder thing to fix.
 
ataraxia said:
Unlike some politicians these days, I really think keeping the country together was more important to him than personal or partisan gain. If he and his pillow get shot in the gunfight (which they did, obviously), well then that was a price he was apparently willing to pay.

If voters make a mistake, they will eventually learn from the consequences. But a country in open civil war is a harder thing to fix.
Click to expand...

On one level, you are very correct. On a different level, Obama is the perfect opponent for the right wing since he plays fair and is decent and will not bring the proverbial uzi to the gun fight and that is the match up they want.

To a large extent it reminds me of the early gig that Hannity had where they teamed him with Alan Colmes in 1996 and supposedly it was a liberal and a conservative going head to head in a FOX version of Crossfire. However, Hannity was Hannity and Colmes was mostly a quiet milquetoast type who most often failed to hold up his end and failed to match Hannity in passion and fervor over the 12 year run. That is the kind of foe the right wing loves.

When is Obama going to take off the gloves and fight in the trenches against the right and fascism?
 
haymarket said:
On one level, you are very correct. On a different level, Obama is the perfect opponent for the right wing since he plays fair and is decent and will not bring the proverbial uzi to the gun fight and that is the match up they want.

To a large extent it reminds me of the early gig that Hannity had where they teamed him with Alan Colmes in 1996 and supposedly it was a liberal and a conservative going head to head in a FOX version of Crossfire. However, Hannity was Hannity and Colmes was mostly a quiet milquetoast type who most often failed to hold up his end and failed to match Hannity in passion and fervor over the 12 year run. That is the kind of foe the right wing loves.

When is Obama going to take off the gloves and fight in the trenches against the right and fascism?
Click to expand...

That would be very satisfying, wouldn’t it? But I think the policy being pursued here, perhaps looking at the longer term, is to let that Trump base learn from their own consequences. If you have raised children, you will know what I mean. Sometimes the most sure way to get them to do something is just to tell them to not do it. And the most sure way to get them not to do something is to just to tell them to do it. The more forceful you get, the more likely they are going to do the opposite of what you were saying. Sometimes there is nothing like just letting them touch the hot stove for themselves to get them to learn not to touch a hot stove anymore.
 
ataraxia said:
That would be very satisfying, wouldn’t it? But I think the policy being pursued here, perhaps looking at the longer term, is to let that Trump base learn from their own consequences. If you have raised children, you will know what I mean. Sometimes the most sure way to get them to do something is just to tell them to not do it. And the most sure way to get them not to do something is to just to tell them to do it. The more forceful you get, the more likely they are going to do the opposite of what you were saying. Sometimes there is nothing like just letting them touch the hot stove for themselves to get them to learn not to touch a hot stove anymore.
Click to expand...

Well I did raise two kids who are now adults with kids of their own. And they function so I guess we did something right.

I get your comparison but the reality is lots of really crummy kids grow up to be really crummy adults and never do learn the lessons. I do suspect many of the Trump voters will learn the hard way but also suspect that the percentage who are truly the deplorable are irredeemable and hopeless. Handling them with kid gloves - is not the way to go about it.
 
zimmer said:
And why did he lie to the American people about the involvement?
Click to expand...




“Thread: Why was Obama so gutless as to not confront Putin about election interference?”

Why would you make your thread a lie? Or are you just recklessly ignorant?

Obama gave an in-person warning to Putin at a summit meeting in Hangzhou, China in early September of 2016, informing his counterpart that interference in the election or manipulating the vote would invite a strong U.S. response.

All you know how to do, zimmer, is troll. Feeding you the truth, unfortunately, is probably malnourishing to you.
 
bluesmoke said:
“Thread: Why was Obama so gutless as to not confront Putin about election interference?”

Why would you make your thread a lie? Or are you just recklessly ignorant?

Obama gave an in-person warning to Putin at a summit meeting in Hangzhou, China in early September of 2016, informing his counterpart that interference in the election or manipulating the vote would invite a strong U.S. response.

All you know how to do, zimmer, is troll. Feeding you the truth, unfortunately, is probably malnourishing to you.
Click to expand...

Obama thought Hillary had the election in the bag and, had she won, there would have been no "strong response" or probably any response at all. All the outrage only started after Trump won. Obama could have been making strong responses starting in 2013 but he waits to even warn them just four months from the end of his presidency? That doesn't pass the smell test. Plus, in October, 2016 Obama made it clear that an American election could never be rigged. Of course, again, he figured Hillary was a shoo-in.
 
veritas1 said:
Obama thought Hillary had the election in the bag and, had she won, there would have been no "strong response" or probably any response at all. All the outrage only started after Trump won. Obama could have been making strong responses starting in 2013 but he waits to even warn them just four months from the end of his presidency? That doesn't pass the smell test. Plus, in October, 2016 Obama made it clear that an American election could never be rigged. Of course, again, he figured Hillary was a shoo-in.
Click to expand...

You know what doesn't pass the smell test? Donald Trump saying he was going to call the entire US elections "rigged" and incite political instability and riots if he lost the election, even though every poll had shown him to consistently be lagging.
 
zimmer said:
And why did he lie to the American people about the involvement?
Click to expand...

if you'd pull your head out of your ass and actually read things, you would get your answer pretty easily, but you don't want it

https://www.npr.org/2018/02/21/5876...a-stop-russia-s-election-interference-in-2016

Among other things, top U.S. intelligence officials — including then-CIA Director John Brennan — privately warned their Russian counterparts not to persist with their active measures. Obama himself told Russian President Vladimir Putin not to interfere in the election. These warnings did not work.
Click to expand...

After Election Day, Obama ordered the U.S. intelligence community to issue a public report about the Russian scheme. Once it had — and concluded Russia's attack was aimed at helping Trump and hurting Clinton — the United States imposed a slate of punitive measures against Moscow. In addition to imposing new sanctions, Washington also expelled a number of Russian diplomats and closed two Russian diplomatic compounds in Maryland and New York.
Click to expand...


Former Vice President Joe Biden also has complained that the White House wanted Republicans to join in a bipartisan statement announcing and condemning the interference campaign. In Biden's telling, however, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., wouldn't go along.
Click to expand...

McConnel refused, because republicans are scumbags who only care about winning and enriching their donors
 
ataraxia said:
You know what doesn't pass the smell test? Donald Trump saying he was going to call the entire US elections "rigged" and incite political instability and riots if he lost the election, even though every poll had shown him to consistently be lagging.
Click to expand...

Conservatives don't riot. We leave that to Antifa and other leftwing mobs.
 
haymarket said:
On one level, you are very correct. On a different level, Obama is the perfect opponent for the right wing since he plays fair and is decent and will not bring the proverbial uzi to the gun fight and that is the match up they want.

To a large extent it reminds me of the early gig that Hannity had where they teamed him with Alan Colmes in 1996 and supposedly it was a liberal and a conservative going head to head in a FOX version of Crossfire. However, Hannity was Hannity and Colmes was mostly a quiet milquetoast type who most often failed to hold up his end and failed to match Hannity in passion and fervor over the 12 year run. That is the kind of foe the right wing loves.

When is Obama going to take off the gloves and fight in the trenches against the right and fascism?
Click to expand...

And he's black so already a large amount of republican's base will hate him no matter what. The scapegoat fo the disaster the republicans caused. God, republican voters in general are just complete idiots
 
Sampson Simpson said:
if you'd pull your head out of your ass and actually read things, you would get your answer pretty easily, but you don't want it

https://www.npr.org/2018/02/21/5876...a-stop-russia-s-election-interference-in-2016








McConnel refused, because republicans are scumbags who only care about winning and enriching their donors
Click to expand...

Pronouncements accomplish nothing. The only thing that works is strong counter measures including doing our own cyber attacks where prudent. Statements of displeasure are wholly for public consumption.
 
veritas1 said:
Conservatives don't riot. We leave that to Antifa and other leftwing mobs.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because many conservatives are cowards, always so scared they have to walk around everywhere with their guns. And conservatives just murder people because they are giant cowards. Hide behind hoods in gangs to go after minorities, abuse the judicial system to stick it to minorities. Right wing extremists are the leaders in committing terrorist attacks in this country
 
LincolnRossiter said:
Obama's relative inaction, and his acquiescence to DoJ and Congress' desire to keep the scope of Russian interference and the investigation into potential Trump campaign involvement largely from the public before the election concluded, is definitely a mark against him.

But the honest answer is that Obama, DoJ, and his entire team thought Trump stood little chance of winning and therefore (1) didn't want to be in a position to be accused of assisting what they viewed as a near-certain Clinton victory, and (2) simply didn't think the Russian attacks mattered enough to rock an election whose conclusion they viewed as all but foregone. That's not to say that they wouldn't have gotten more aggressive and revealed the details that have since been divulged after a Hillary victory. But they didn't see the point of doing so during the election.
Click to expand...

I think you are totally correct. The only point I differ on is that they would have done much had Hillary won. She, after all, had pushed the big, red "reset" button with Russia.
 
Obama signed the Mangnitsky Act in 2012 which created sanctions against Russia. Remember the Trump tower meeting about Russian adoption? It was about the Russians trying to remove the sanctions that Obama imposed.

So, how was Obama gutless? Trump was actively trying to remove those sanctions while secretly and illegally negotiating with the Russian ambassador.
 
Acting harshly and aggressively towards Russian's actions during the run up to the election would have had significant implications and ramifications on his parties nominee who, at the time, was thought to be a near sure thing, hovering around 78% from august until election day. It would infuriate her opponents base, play into his accusations of the election not being fair ("wag the dog"), and likely tarnish whatever victory she obtained. It would also further strain the ability for the country to heal and come together behind her after her victory. What's more, assuming a Hillary victory, the political damage of aggressively coming out about Russia and their interference could be avoided with the assumption that President Clinton would deal with it post haste upon ascending to the office. Plus it helped maintain Obama's legacy, as entering into a significant conflict with Russia months before he left office would potentially tarnish his overall Presidential record in the history books (passing on his "problems" to another president ALA Bush and the WOT).

So Obama sought to engage in diplomatic negotiation strategies, minor diplomatic sanctions, and a relative downplaying of the whole thing in terms of any public speaking or focus on it so as not to damage his parties political opportunities, the countries ability to rally behind Hillary and heal after her victory, and the assumption that Hillary would win and then deal aggressively with the problem. So not so much "ignoring" it as much as kicking the can down the road with the heavy assumption that your partner is going to be on your 6 ready to kick it.

However...

The highly unexpected result occurred, Trump won, all the Russia stuff came out en masse actually causing the exact issue of the country having a hard time to heal to happen, and Trump...being the thin skinned individual he is...not strongly going after Russia like Hillary likely would because in his head, based on the presentation by the media he pays attention to, action against Russia is confirmation that they "stole" the election for him.
 
Zyphlin said:
Acting harshly and aggressively towards Russian's actions during the run up to the election would have had significant implications and ramifications on his parties nominee who, at the time, was thought to be a near sure thing, hovering around 78% from august until election day. It would infuriate her opponents base, play into his accusations of the election not being fair ("wag the dog"), and likely tarnish whatever victory she obtained. It would also further strain the ability for the country to heal and come together behind her after her victory. What's more, assuming a Hillary victory, the political damage of aggressively coming out about Russia and their interference could be avoided with the assumption that President Clinton would deal with it post haste upon ascending to the office. Plus it helped maintain Obama's legacy, as entering into a significant conflict with Russia months before he left office would potentially tarnish his overall Presidential record in the history books (passing on his "problems" to another president ALA Bush and the WOT).

So Obama sought to engage in diplomatic negotiation strategies, minor diplomatic sanctions, and a relative downplaying of the whole thing in terms of any public speaking or focus on it so as not to damage his parties political opportunities, the countries ability to rally behind Hillary and heal after her victory, and the assumption that Hillary would win and then deal aggressively with the problem. So not so much "ignoring" it as much as kicking the can down the road with the heavy assumption that your partner is going to be on your 6 ready to kick it.

However...

The highly unexpected result occurred, Trump won, all the Russia stuff came out en masse actually causing the exact issue of the country having a hard time to heal to happen, and Trump...being the thin skinned individual he is...not strongly going after Russia like Hillary likely would because in his head, based on the presentation by the media he pays attention to, action against Russia is confirmation that they "stole" the election for him.
Click to expand...

That sounds about right. The only way he could have really come out with it pre-election would have been with some sort of bipartisan gesture — one McConnell refused to allow. Golly, wonder why.
 
veritas1 said:
Conservatives don't riot. We leave that to Antifa and other leftwing mobs.
Click to expand...

Conservatives just collude with Russia to sway an election.
 
veritas1 said:
Conservatives don't riot. We leave that to Antifa and other leftwing mobs.
Click to expand...

So whose legal fees was Trump going to cover when he said "beat the sh-t out of 'em will ya? I'll cover your legal fees"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom