Would you take 8 more years of Obama?

Well, let's take running NATO as one basic example. It was not Donald who started the 'more funding' thing, it was the current president. Who basically said 'pretty please' to the other NATO members, and they were like 'nope'. Then Donald basically ups the ante by saying 'we'll go home' and then presto, we got more funding.

Does the US run it, or more like the image of the US gives NATO a certain credibility they wouldn't have if it weren't for US involvement? We really don't run NATO anymore. Yes, we fund its defenses and yes for all intents and purposes I'll even call it a proxy. But the NATO operations are exclusive to its sphere of influence specifically.

And I wouldn't mind a defense pact, if it operated within that lens of a defense pact. We're now calling for a call to arms against Russia, believing that it'll bankrupt(the already bankrupt(?) Russians.) Okay, but what if it doesn't?

What if Russia decides, bankruptcy and all that they really can't tolerate the increasing arms of 'antagonist' countries and decides to go full throttle with the war? Sure, we'd claim Russians were the aggressors and perhaps they did technically fire the first shot. But we did NO favors to the situation, at all.

Meanwhile, you proclaim every diplomatic measure of mine impossible. Let's say that your right and every one of my diplomatic measures and coalition building ideas are impossible. What kinds of diplomatic measures and coalitions are possible? Theoretically how would the Russians have to reciprocate for peace to work?

 

At this point in time, 54% say he is good.
He did continue bush's policies.
The prez can only do so much, congress still plays a role in what a prez can do.

Was he good? For what? If one was poor without insurance, he was good.
If one had insurance, they saw premiums jump quite a bit, but that was going on before any way.

We were in the shiite hole in the economy after the housing bust. We've slowly crawled out. Markets are at or near all time highs. Take that for what it's worth.

 

So your answer is another 8 Obama over Hillary?

- - - Updated - - -

"I write good posts".

You write posts that show the fear you have over Russia and why the United States needs to be your big brother. Grow some balls

 

probably goes back further than obama actually. With the exception of eastern european countries, europe has been "meh" to increased spending, because they were not, and arguable still aren't, under any threats. The US spends much on military because they have commitments around the world, but many european countries are neither threatened by Russia, nor heavily engaged around the world, so they don't bother with big militaries. I mean, a country like e.g. portugal.. faces no threats at all. Quite frankly, I don't even know if they'd care if the US "left".

i told you, the supreme allied commander europe position is reserved for an american. yes, you do run NATO. NATO is an american led-organisation.

you mean, what if everyone in the russian government suddenly became absolute idiots? Because that's what they'd have to be to consider a nuclear war. No, that is an unlikely scenario. Putin, and the others in russia, knows that a war with NATO means that everyone, including themselves, will die. Do you seriously think that they would rather have themselves and all russians killed, rather than just give some concessions? I think not, because I do not think they are imbeciles.

yes, good question. Russia is obviously worried about military build-ups near their borders. Russia should realise that they caused this by their aggressive behaviour. The solution from the russian side is to start negotiations of mutual disarmament. e.g. "I find you weapons in area A to be threatening. will you remove them if I remove my weapons from area B?" or "should we both agree to reduce the number of troops close to the borders?". basically, russia should ask NATO to remove threatening military units, in exchange for that russia does the same.

Also, Russia is suspicious of NATO and the EU, and wants to have some areas close to russia as off-limits for western militaries. For example, Finland, Sweden, caucasus, belarus, ukraine.. These are areas Russia does not want western military presence. The best way is simply for russia to talk with these countries and assure them russia poses no threat to them, and that russia would appriciate if they stayed completely neutral. But russia has been doing the opposite, scaring their niehgbors into closer relations with nato.

Russia wants to secure access to areas for the military, as with the military base in crimea. Russia didn't want ukraine to get closer to the Eu because that might threaten their crimean base, but prior to the ukraine crisis, ukraine and russia had very good relations, so russia could very easily have made a deal with ukraine where they go through all the details needed to make the russians feel safe in crimea. Maybe Russia could pursuede ukraine to stay out of any european defense cooperation for example, which ukraine would probably agree to as long as it didn't feel threatened by russia. But it's too late for that now, since ukraine hates russia now.

and finally, russia wants markets to sell their resources to. first thing is that they need to stop seeing the EU as a threat, and more as a partner. it's a huge market that wants russian energy. Russia wants to build their own economic union, and they wanted ukraine to be part of it. But rather than seeking to compete with the EU, russia should seek deeper ties with it, just like e.g. the usa or canada. it would be mutually beneficial. Russia has no reason to be hostile to the EU except for stubborness about how they want their own sphere. if they would just stop that, they could have many friends in europe.

 

"grow some balls" he tells me, while he bends over to putin...

 

Which makes this situation MADDENING. Europe acknowledges that it's not in any threat whatsoever, but we'd raise the Syrian Theater, and what good did that do anyone? The Syrians? The Russians? Has anyone won from this? No, no one has won. That's why I believe a true ceasefire is when the US, Russians, Syrians ALL agree universally to put their arms down. Syria in the first place, isn't even within the Western-Pacific Hemisphere. I don't even know what we're doing there, other than again to pick an antagonism with what is seen as a Russian Ally, and the stupidity of 'Assad Must go'.

Something that everyone agrees with, but the violence prevents a political transition. Again, the utter insanity of what we're doing with Russia. This could be resolved with a serious attempt at diplomacy. There's no military solution to Syria, yet we(or rather Madam Clinton) insists on a no-fly zone. God help us all.

The ones who lose the most are the Syrians, who must choose between the Western Forces or Moscow for influence. One thing's for sure, a Sovereign Syria looks bleak.
So our involvement, has not been productive.

The situation is EXACTLY the same in Ukraine. Ukraine is the exact same type of theater, different country.

[video=youtube;vdxG-fLv0vI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdxG-fLv0vI[/video]

One solution is a partition of Ukraine. Let the Eastern side become its own country(similar to other situations in the past, notably Congo if I recall correctly?) And then the West side can join the EU, and we can all avoid this very tragic mess.

No violence on any side is ever acceptable, but I understand Russia's concerns with the Neo-Nazi separatist groups and when it was found out by US Congressmen, quite a few were appalled as well.

I will accept the Neo-con/American part. It was especially juicy for Victoria Nuland and John McCain(who made a visit there.) These actors, have also contributed greatly to the world map that is quickly burning the INTL. Coalition that granted us peace.

We all have to step back. Peace in Syria is possible, peace in Ukraine is possible. Russia and Europe can co-exist. In the case of Syria, the U.N gave up on the Annan Plan and he resigned. Tragic. I say we go back to square one with that plan, and hammer out the details. This can only be resolved with the strength of the international community. There isn't a missile or a sanction that's going to bring peace.

 

Well, this gets complicated when we're speaking of "europe", since some european countries are threatened and some are not. It's the eastern countries which are threatened mostly.

As for Syria... let's look at what the interests of the parties are. Inside Syria itself we have the shias, sunnis, and kurds. The sunnis are currently in rebellion because they don't like the sectarian government, dominated by shias. The kurds want autonomy. The shias are supporting assad because they are afraid (and rightly so) that the sunni rebels will commit atrocities on shias if they win.

The outside parties are Russia, the USA, Turkey, the EU, and the sunni powers (KSA and their gulf allies) and shia Iran. Russia are mainly interested in defending their military base in syria, and of having a friendly Syrian government. The USA wants to destroy terrorist factions and end humanitarian disasters. The EU wants to end humanitarian disasters also, in order to end the refugee flood. Turkey wants to make sure kurdistan does not get independence. The sunni and shia powers are supporting their co-religionists respectively.

now, having listed all parties and their interests, is there a solution which would be acceptable to all? yes, I think so.

1. Grant high-level of autonomous regions to shias, sunni, and kurds inside Syria (and iraq too for that matter), make the country into a federal republic, guarantee that each group have influence in the federal government. This will adress sunni complains about sectarianism, shia fears of sunni reprisals, and kurdish demand for autonomy.
2. have an international mission act as peace keepers, and have the shias and sunnis lay down their arms.
3. Bashar al Assad must step down as president. Assad personifies the syrian regime which the sunnis hate. There can be no unified syria with him as president. Maybe allow the assad family to retain power in the autonomous shia region.
4. Allow Russia to keep their base and influence over Syria.

To achieve this, we need to talk with russia. We need to assure them they will keep their influence in syria, and that they tell assad to stop bombing his own people, while we tell the rebels to lay down their arms. Then we can focus on killing IS.

No, I think the two congos have always been two different countries actually. The area in general was called the congo, but one part of it was colonised by the belgians, and the other by the french, and both colonies were named "the congo", and kept that name after independence.

as for ukraine, about what can be done from today and forward.. I think the best option would be to federalise ukraine as well. Give autonomy to the eastern regions, but keep it as one country. Have russia and the west both agree to not interfere militarily in the country. I think both sides value ukraine as a neutral buffer. As for crimea, I do not think the west should just accept what russia has done. it is wrong and illegal. The best solution would probably to agree to some form of condominium, shared sovereignty, between russia and ukraine, or alternatively, have crimea as a super autonomous region of either country. Russia is probably not going to agree to give up their bases in crimea.

 

At least we went beyond "Ruskie bad" or "Europe bad" and we can now talk about a real path forward. Because the goal here, is to maintain the peace. Since the end of the Cold War there've been no major skirmishes. Our interests, is in keeping it that way. Europe's and the US's. And I feel we've gotten away from that.(Partially because IMO, the U.N is starting to suffer from the same hapless ineffectiveness as the former League of Nations did, when Germany antagonized it.)

The major problem that our international organizations are having, is that the national interests are intertwining with the international ones. As an example, I'd like to have that U.N keeping force but logically of course they're not going to come from nowhere, but from citizens of our countries. They'd have to act not in the interest of the Nation-State, but instead of the political body.

And because the heads of states are politically oriented, instead of as 'world citizens'(as they'd like to phrase it), the type of disagreements seen in Syria(and in the spat between Kerry and Lavov) is the norm, not the exception.(Which is why I argue Globalism is an inherent irony in itself.).

The end result being, that both the League of Nations and the U.N were powerless to address concerns. At the beginning of the Syrian crisis for example, Vladimir Putin pointed out that President Obama did not take up the issue before the United Nations. Obama's excuse was that Russia/China would veto and thus the U.N wasn't a viable vehicle for change.

In of itself, that 2012 incident right there spelled the doom of the UN. We should get rid of the veto vote. If no nation can veto, then no nation wields more influence than any other in the organization and thus talks can begin on an even-keeled foot.

I have no problem with your stated solutions to Syria, they seem feasible. On the other hand, let's assume the worst case in that Assad doesn't want to 'step down'. The US /Europe should not be pressuring on this point. If we haven't noticed by now: That's getting us nowhere. Instead, we should be pressuring Assad on making the necessary reforms, for a more secular Syria.

If the Syrian Government becomes more inclusive, rather than a minority government does it matter to them that Assad is still in power? Similarly to how the Japanese/British Monarchies are there in name only. If we can't take out Assad, weaken his influence within the Syrian Government. Is that 'perfect'? Of course not, but it's a start in the right direction for the Syrians.

And the Ukrainian Solution you proposed, is the best. I'd lean towards making Crimea the super autonomous region. That'll satisfy everyone. The point is, we should be looking to solve problems, not use force to solve problems. Hitler used force in 1939 and that started WWII. When we can, let's not make the same mistake.

 

Nope. 2 terms is enough of any prez. I wish congress would be term limited in some fashion also.
But I think hilary will continue much of the same global policies as bush and obama. Pretty much the same as the last 40 yrs.

 

Funny how foreign policy works out. You're correct for the most part, outside of trimming around the edges it is the same ole, same old stuff all over again. Domestic policy offers a bit more change, not much, but a bit more. Not much changes whether there is a D or R residing in the Oval Office.

 

Which is why I don't get all the partisan bickering. Anyone who complains about 1 party while cowtowing the other, are hypocrites IMO. Most don't realize it.

 

The world was a much safer place when the US and Russia divided the world between themselves and all their little client states were under control. The biggest mistake in recent history was Regan immasculating Russia and thereby turning all the little client states free to wreck their mischief.

 

I voted for him and yes I would. (I'm white, straight and male and voted for Obama OMG!).


Why?


-He wasn't actually that progressive. He was really a left-centrist.

-He's a center-left pro capitalist and I think capitalism is a good thing.

-He actually did more against illegal immigration than Bush did in his ENTIRE 8 years.....Obama deported WAY more. (Republicans are full of BS on immigration..Look at Texas)

-Obama wasn't a piece of s.hit good ol' boy from a bar in uptown Dallas nor was he a scumbag lecherous good ol' boy crook from the backwoods of Arkansas. Obama is a good guy. He's much closer to most Americans than George Bush or Bill Clinton ever were in terms of character and decency and I respect him for it.

-Obama brought rational regulation back. I love capitalism but I'm the first to say capitalism works best with regulations. Unbridled capitalism impoverishes all while making a select few insanely rich before the crash. Regulation is a good thing.

-Obama is likely an Atheist deep down and I so respect him for that. To levels I truly can't explain frankly.

 

That's one way to put it. The problem is almost everyone listens to the rhetoric spouted by both major parties. Which in quite a lot of cases is polar opposite. But very few ever watch how they govern. The problem is our two major parties can't really make any radical changes or even think about changing directions of government. Both major parties owe their hearts and souls to corporations, wall street firms, lobbyist, special interests and mega money donors. Most of those I just mentioned donate to both parties and their candidates. True, incumbents will get the most, but they also give to the challenger just in case he wins. That way no matter who wins owes them.

It has been said that in this country there is truly only one political party, but it has two wings. The Republican wing and the Democratic wing. Both wings will never bite the hands that feed them.

 

Hahaha this is awesome.

Obama is far superior to either of the nominees.

 

Of course.

8 more years of Obama would be fine with me.

 

According to some crazies on the right, Obama isn't going to let this election happen. He's close to making himself emperor.

 

They are indeed powerless. I am not suggesting that this can be solved by the UN. It cannot. It is russia and the west which have to talk to each other in order to solve it. After they have done that, the UN can step in to provide peace-keepers and grant international legitimacy to the whole thing.

Yes, it does matter, because assad is personally despised by more than half of the syrians. He has been barrel bombing, using gas, and whatever, against his own people. Assad and his regime is the reason for the rebellions in the first place. Assad has to go, because there is just no way that the sunnis will ever accept him as president of syria. You can't be the president of a unified syria when you've assad's history. Peace is simply impossible with him still in power.

If we give assurances to russia that they will keep their influence in Syria, they could agree to pressuring assad to step down. I mean, Russia doesn't care about assad per se, they care about their influence. And Assad would probably step down once he loses the support of the russians, since the alternative is to die gadaffi-style. If he refuses, it won't be hard to get rid of him anyways. His regime would crumble without support from the russians.

Hitler is to be compared to Putin, not us. What happened prior to ww2 was that the allies gave in to German demands in czechoslovakia, the rhineland, austria.. Indeed, let's not make the same mistake again by being appeasers. People like hitler and putin need to be met force. Not war, but with a clear display of strength and commitment, so that they don't try stupid things. You know, when Hitler invaded Poland, he didn't actually think the brits would declare war, because he had seen how weak and appeasing they were when he invaded czechoslovakia. It's all about communication: if you appear weak and craven, they can mistakenly think you are not willing to fight. Wars typically start because of misunderstanding.. One side misjudges the other side's strength and commitment to fight.. When it is crystal clear to both parties their relative strength, and where the red lines are drawn, there will never be a war.

 

It was German Aggression in both world wars, that started it correct? And based on that viewpoint, I argue that a building of arms, or a stationing of forces anywhere amounts to the same thing. The only reason the US has been able to succeed in its nation-building, base-building thing is that A: We have so many of the damn things now and B: The projection of force basically scared everyone else witless.

That changes, if Russia and Co can create a coalition and are willing to use nuclear weapons. It's the worst thing that can happen, and slowly is happening. That's why the need for the shift(or at least neutrality) to cancel out that threat.

But let's talk about the logistics of a defiant Assad, even if Russia were to relent to the idea of Assad being removed while maintaining influence of power. We get into a new stalemate: I can see the rebels wanting US logistical assistance(which may even escalate to US air or ground forces), and obviously we can plainly see that Russia would oppose to that.

Yet, I also imagine that we(and you) would oppose a Russian overthrow of Assad. As that would just further entrench the Russians. So I think that when/if US/Russia agrees on the fate of Assad and he's stupid enough to refuse, I think that's when we should use the UN(similarly to the Libya case) and we'd get INTL backing and support for what needs to be done in that case.

 

No, you got it completely wrong. I told you, Hitler didn't start ww2 because he was afriad. On the contrary, he started it because he though the allies were weak and afraid. I told you, clear communication is key. Hitler, like Putin, is looking for weakness to exploit, they are opportunists. We just need to show Putin where we draw lines, and show him our strength. That way there will be no misunderstandings that lead to war. and no, you can't compare what Germany did to what the USA is doing. it's not the same thing at all.

Everyone who has nukes is willing to use them, under the right circumstances. Everyone knows that using nukes will lead to everyone dying. Why are you speaking of nukes as if Russia somehow had an advantage over you, and as if Russia was in a different situation than you? You have as little reason to bow for russian demands as they have to bow for your demands. Both have nukes, both will die if either uses them. No, you don't need to shift to neutrality or whatever, because russia is not going to use nukes if we build up in the baltics, just as you're not going to use nukes even if russia invaded the ukraine. There are (somewhat) clear lines for when nukes can be used, and that is when one side attacks the other or their allies.

Russia only attacks the rebels to support assad. if they make a deal with the US to abandon assad, they'd obviously stop caring about the rebels also.

 

I doubt if many chronic Obama haters, whether they still fantasize about the twice popularly-elected POTUS being a foreign-born, madrasa-indoctrinated, America-hating, intellectually-challenged Black supremacist African witch doctor, would prefer the plight in which their Bush left the nation to what has since been achieved. (Thus the incumbent's approximately 30% higher public approval in national polls at comparable stages of their tenures,)

Due to the Twenty-Second Amendment, Americans being allowed to vote for the candidate of their choice has been restricted, but I have no doubt that Barack Obama would prevail over Clinton if that were not the case.


.

 

No one asked you to come here and whine about race cards. If you have something to attribute to the thread, be our guest.

 

Even I agree with that

 

There's one piece missing from the world economy (US, China, Brazil, Germany, Japan)...it's Russia. The world would be much better off with open trade and no sanctions with them. If you truly look at the argument here, you'll see nothing really should concern the US. We don't bother China when they do stupid (*)(*)(*)(*). Why? Money. Do they bother us when we do stupid (*)(*)(*)(*)? Nope. Why? Money. Russia isn't any different.

- - - Updated - - -

Can't argue with anything you said

 

The attributions ascribed to the President by his virulent detractors, racists included, and the extent to which they might still cling to them, directly impacts their estimation of him for a theoretical extended term or two.

Obviously, their answer to the topic's thread "Would you take 8 more years of Obama?" is significantly impacted by the tenacity to which they hold to their revilements of him.