U.S. Politics transition time how Orange became the new black

[Paladin of Ice]

Arakan,

For someone who is so concerned about the US looking hypocritical (to the point that you feel the need to mention it multiple times in your post) and wants a consistent policy so badly, you seem to want Obama to take wildly differing approaches. Sometimes you want him to be wildly aggressive, sometimes you want him to be non-interventionist, and apparently the only thing that ties them together is you want him to be those opposing things as it suits your personal views and what you think was the right thing to do.

Had things actually played out the ways you wanted, and, say, Obama had rushed into conflict with Russia over Crimea, had casualties piling up from an intervention in Syria from a direct conflict with IS, or broken with decades long allies at the drop of a hat, I feel skeptical that anything would change except that the complaints would instead be flowing about Obama's dangerous saber rattling with a major military power, his need to continue US interference in the Middle East, and how his treatment of allies undermines the US geopolitical standing.

[mormont]

10 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

 What is stranger: Trump & co's sycophantic Putin worship, or the Left's wrath and fury that Russia would try something like this?

The former, and it's not even close.

This is frankly a strange question. What gives you the impression that the left are or ever have been OK with Putin or with interference in democratic elections?

5 hours ago, snake said:

A scathing indictment of Obama's crackdown on the press and the foundation he laid that could well enable Donald Trump to curtail press freedom in the US.

Meh. Trump was always going to curtail press freedom, regardless of what Obama did or didn't do. It's one of the few policies he has that he is genuinely personally committed to.

[DMC]

I have a few comments on this thread I'm just going to generalize rather than quote specific posters.  Just finished watching all of season 2 of Better Call Saul and am tired.

The contention Obama's actions regarding Russia are "petulant" for a lame duck are ridiculous.  Lame ducks retain their rights to act as political actors, let alone their constitutional prerogatives.  Sure, Dubya didn't do anything notable during his stint - largely because the country was already going to hell at the time - but his dad sure made some very political pardons that included preempting criminal charges of a former SecDef.  Political activities of lame ducks is entwined in the very fabric of our political system - if it was not for Adams' "midnight" appointments aimed to pack the judiciary with Federalists, we would not have Marbury v. Madison, which of course established judicial review for SCOTUS.

Relatedly, the notion Obama should have levied sanctions against Russia pre-election is incredibly stupid and naive.  It would have been viewed in an entirely partisan lens, meaning any Republicans that may have been inclined to agree with him on principle would be under immeasurably more electoral pressure to ignore it.  Doing so after the contest is the responsible thing to do as a steward of this country; just because the result sucks doesn't change that.

On Obama FP:  His administration has consistently fostered a policy of rapprochement in the Middle East, for better or worse.  Anyone who thinks things would be better in Iraq, Iran, Libya, Pakistan, or Turkey is basing such on pure conjecture.  In all of those cases, I prefer the policy of least action rather than further interjection, because the latter failed for 60 some years.  The only place I do agree he pussed out on is Syria.  When you draw a line and someone crosses it, you back it up as a superpower.  He failed miserably there, and has sat idly by allowing the crisis to reach genocidal levels. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

22 minutes ago, mormont said:

The former, and it's not even close.

This is frankly a strange question. What gives you the impression that the left are or ever have been OK with Putin or with interference in democratic elections?

I can see how I didn't word that as well as I could have.  Of course they shouldn't be okay with interference in an election but the shock that Russia would attempt this seems strange and naive.  Maybe it's just because of the context with the greater insanity it's taking place inside of, that I'd read a lot of histrionic reactions along the lines of "in lieu of hacking should the electoral college bote be delayed?"  

 

And then there's the Repubs following Trump's lead where they are totally unconcerned.  

Maybe I'm just being weirdly selective about what an appropriate response from everyone would be but everything about this feels backward, other than the Repubs falling into formation like clockwork.

[Arakan]

at all: what I expect from US foreign policy to be consistent, not halfass. 

Ukraine: you want to support some dubious Orange Revolution? By all means do it but don't do it halfass. Otherwise accept spheres of influence and Ukraine, a dysfunctional state, is not in the sphere of influence of the US or EU. Same goes for Syria. Same goes for Lybia. 

My examples of Egypt Bahrain and Yemen were just chosen to show how inconsistency leads to lacking credibility and hypocrisy. ESPECIALLY when you try to justify your foreign policy with morality. 

Obama SHOULD HAVE NEVER supported the rebels, be it Libya or Syria. When does the US understand that the only powerful opposition in those country are Islamists. 

I did not choose Algeria 1992 without reason. 

And yes, IS is on BO's failed Iraq and Syria policy. Don't believe me? You don't have to. Read what your own US security experts had to say about the state of Iraq in 2011. BO acted absolutely irresponsible. 

Let no one misunderstand me: Trump is a joke but at least it's for all the world to see. And of course I had much higher expectations for Obama than I will ever have for Trump. 

Did Trump piss me off with his "we will make them pay" comment? Of course but thank god he said it. 

[DMC]

28 minutes ago, Arakan said:

at all: what I expect from US foreign policy to be consistent, not halfass. 

...

Did Trump piss me off with his "we will make them pay" comment? Of course but thank god he said it. 

I think the bolded encapsulates the reductionist rhetoric of your post.  Just as "we will make them pay" has no tangible follow up, neither does the question as to what precisely should Obama have done to prevent the rise of ISIL in Iraq and Syria.  Would a more aggressive approach have deterred their uprising?  That's an incredibly dubious proposition.

Other queries:  Describe any different policy in Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, or Libya for that matter that would have precipitated a more desirable outcome for the west?  How do you discern "Islamists" from "genuine" rebels in failed states in which muslims are the overwhelming majority (otherwise known as:  can I have your crystal ball)?  How could have Obama supported Ukraine in less of a "halfass" way that wouldn't have precipitated serious conflict with Russia?  In what way is Obama's rapprochement policy throughout the Middle East, and throughout his eight years, not consistent - even though I too disagree with such regarding Syria?

[butterbumps!]

10 hours ago, Kalbear said:

My understanding was that they had all the evidence they really desired in October, and could have made a decent case in July, but they didn't want to do anything to harm the election and thought at the time that Clinton would win. As I pointed out we knew as early as July that it was Russia, the only thing we were not clear of was whether it was merely disruptive or actively attempting to get Trump elected (and reasonably we still don't know that). Obama announced in October that it was Russians and that he would take action at a time and place of his choosing - but nothing at that point, and nothing special in the end, and nothing involving congress. 

As to it being 'petty' in October - likely not, given that he was still the sitting president and Trump wasn't the reason to do things so quickly. Since it might have had the effect of potentially harming Clinton's chances I think that it wouldn't have looked petty at all - it would have looked like in spite of politics, Obama chose the country over his party. Especially if he was teaming up with McCain and Graham and the like to get an investigation going, which could have happened. 

I just spent some time trying to research the hacking news coverage to try to piece it together. (as a side note, there was just so much shit in this election to wade through that I honestly don't have any confidence in my memory anymore).  I came across this from back in Aug that gives some suggestions as to why this story wasn't growing the way it should have back then.   In general, it looks like no one wanted to confront or touch this publicly until the October 7 formal announcement that it was Russia, and when it was mentioned, it appears mostly to suggest that the US would be handling/ retaliating in kind, behind the scenes.    I think the CIA only got behind the idea this was Russian hackers in mid-September, and the FBI even later.   

Of course, October 7 is the exact same day Pussygate broke.   Then the narrative became pretty exclusively about Trump's prodigious sexual assault pursuits.  When the emails were covered, the heft of the narrative was "EmailZ!!!  Scandal!! cuz EMAILZ!!" and not the fact they were uncovered and released by a foreign power.  

I'm having a hard time getting a read on why the investigation fizzled out from public view.  Was it as simple as Obama choosing to let Clinton deal with it?   My impression is that there was lack of interest from stalwart Repubs (I recall 3-4 speaking out against Russian interference, but not strongly enough to team up with Reid and the dems calling for investigation).   I know it would have been risky for the Dems and Obama to push an investigation very openly, because that would have kept "EMAILZ!" in the news, and could have hurt Hillary as you mention.   Did the investigation need to be transparent to the rest of us, though?   I mean, what I read was that the US wanted to deal with it covertly foremost, not that they weren't going to make a thing out of it, but just do so behind the scenes; do you think that was a mistake?  

I didn't think it would look petty to be brought forward, rather I think it would have looked desperate and tin-foil to people, especially at a time when so many Americans were disgusted with both candidates, one of whom kept undermining the legitimacy of the election with "rigging" nonsense.   

And could this have even become a real story of interest to the American people in the wake of Pussygate?  

Quote

Does the rest of the world think that Obama is standing up to Putin?

Americans need to see someone confronting the fact that Russia hacked us, so I think Obama did well to stand up to this publicly, for our sake.  Americans need to know and care that Russia did this, and did it because they prefer Trump, for various reasons that will most likely reveal themselves soon enough.   

I'm not sure exactly how the rest of the world or their leaders see Obama's move.   But I think it's an important signal that even though this shit stain on decency is coming to office, America isn't fooled, and that Trump isn't the end all be all of the US.   That might be naive on my part, but as a signal I think it has value.   idk if they're reading it that way, though.   

[Arakan]

1 hour ago, dmc515 said:

I think the bolded encapsulates the reductionist rhetoric of your post.  Just as "we will make them pay" has no tangible follow up, neither does the question as to what precisely should Obama have done to prevent the rise of ISIL in Iraq and Syria.  Would a more aggressive approach have deterred their uprising?  That's an incredibly dubious proposition.

Other queries:  Describe any different policy in Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, or Libya for that matter that would have precipitated a more desirable outcome for the west?  How do you discern "Islamists" from "genuine" rebels in failed states in which muslims are the overwhelming majority (otherwise known as:  can I have your crystal ball)?  How could have Obama supported Ukraine in less of a "halfass" way that wouldn't have precipitated serious conflict with Russia?  In what way is Obama's rapprochement policy throughout the Middle East, and throughout his eight years, not consistent - even though I too disagree with such regarding Syria?

I think you didn't get my point...at all. 

And are you joking? In what way is Obama's MENA policy not consistent? This cannot be a serious question...

So in a few countries Obama supports regime change (Libya, Syria), in others he lets the reactionary forces be in power (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Algeria) or let the opposition be crushed (Bahrain, Egypt, Yemen). Consistency I have to laugh. 

Crystal Ball? Absolutely not needed. I knew the outcome of the Arab Spring back in 2011. When you weaken secular regimes in MENA, it is always the Islamists who come out as strongest opposition. 

Problem of many Americans and their political elite is that they lack any kind of historic memory and in general have a very short attention span. 

The tragedy in Syria is on those who wanted regime change. The jihadists say thank you. As they said in Afghanistan 1989. 

Without the stupidity of US foreign policy since 1979 when it comes to supporting anti-secular regime forces, the world wouldn't have a jihadist problem as we have it now. But I admit: it's not only Obama. 

 

 

[butterbumps!]

2 hours ago, Arakan said:

at all: what I expect from US foreign policy to be consistent, not halfass. 

 

15 minutes ago, Arakan said:

So in a few countries Obama supports regime change (Libya, Syria), in others he lets the reactionary forces be in power (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Algeria) or let the opposition be crushed (Bahrain, Egypt, Yemen). Consistency I have to laugh. 

So you want the US to respond exactly the same way to all foreign affairs?  like we choose a "one size fits all" package and apply it to everything?   Anything less than uniform response is "halfass?"

[Mladen]

1 hour ago, butterbumps! said:

Americans need to see someone confronting the fact that Russia hacked us, so I think Obama did well to stand up to this publicly, for our sake.  Americans need to know and care that Russia did this, and did it because they prefer Trump, for various reasons that will most likely reveal themselves soon enough.   

I'm not sure exactly how the rest of the world or their leaders see Obama's move.   But I think it's an important signal that even though this shit stain on decency is coming to office, America isn't fooled, and that Trump isn't the end all be all of the US.   That might be naive on my part, but as a signal I think it has value.   idk if they're reading it that way, though.   

Speaking as someone from outside, I think, or at least, got impression that the world simply isn't impressed. It is seen as a pointless move that does nothing and that actually it was Putin's cold response was the mature one between them. 

The fact is that no one ever thought America was fooled and honestly, the importance Obama put of "WE ARE NOT FOOLED" is simply wrong. This is just the rest of the world watching America taking the taste of its own medicine. No one thinks that US is going down, and with dollar surging so powerfully in the last quarter, no one can reasonably claim it. But what is important to many countries is that USA finally understood what it means when someone decides to meddle in internal affairs of one country. 

So, no, no one is watching it that way. No one is reading the situation as USA being fooled or weakened. But they do see this as unnecessary confrontation with desire to divide Republicans, make Trump's life a bit more difficult and provoke Putin. So far, he failed in provoking The Motherland's favorite boy. Will see how he did with other two...

Again, just my perception from European media. I could be totally wrong  

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Risto said:

But what is important to many countries is that USA finally understood what it means when someone decides to meddle in internal affairs of one country. 

Unfortunately, the people that probably need the lesson the most, probably won't get the point.

See generally John Bolton getting a government position. That clown deserves to be horse laughed right out of Washington. But, he didn't.

[OldGimletEye]

http://mitsloan.mit.edu/newsroom/articles/rethinking-how-the-housing-crisis-happened/

Quote

So what really happened? Schoar and her co-authors believe there was an increase in leverage among borrowers of all income levels. Homeowners and investors bought and sold homes at an increasing speed between 2000 and 2006. House flipping was especially pronounced in areas of the country that saw high housing price growth between 2002 and 2006.

Remember back in the day when Republicans tried to blame the whole thing on the CRA?

[LongRider]

42 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

http://mitsloan.mit.edu/newsroom/articles/rethinking-how-the-housing-crisis-happened/

Quote

So what really happened? Schoar and her co-authors believe there was an increase in leverage among borrowers of all income levels. Homeowners and investors bought and sold homes at an increasing speed between 2000 and 2006. House flipping was especially pronounced in areas of the country that saw high housing price growth between 2002 and 2006.

Remember back in the day when Republicans tried to blame the whole thing on the CRA?

In Northern Nevada back in those days, I can remember the frenzy; listening to rock stations on the radio at work and be inundated with adds about; mortgages of all kinds, like interest only loans, signature loans, variable interest, balloon payment and what not.  Also, home equity loans; 'use your house like a an ATM machine'.  Reading the local press about housing prices soaring and the never ending flips, flips, flips. 

My good friend and her husband had a small home development company that was successful in the area.  One day she an I were driving somewhere and she received a phone call; her co had a development that hadn't even drawn up the lots yet or broke ground and she was getting calls from customers who wanted to put deposits down on a house there right then!   INSANE!

Never having a mortgage myself I don't know alot about them, but hearing about 'interest only loans' even I know that one wants to pay off the principal.  I would guess there is a time and place for interest only loans, but a first time home buyer?  No. 

Then underneath all that reading that the housing bubble was on it's way.  Crazy, crazy time.

[Martell Spy]

Why Trump Would Be Crazy to Give Putin What He Wants
Trump says it’s time to “move on to bigger and better things.” What could be bigger than hijacking American democracy?

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-214580

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

13 hours ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

Slightly OT but relevant. One of the power companies in Vermont has found evidence of Russian hacking in its code.

The Russians are after our power grid, just like they did in Kiev and elsewhere.

I think that Obama didn't do anything in October because he planned to let Hillary deal with Putin when she was elected. That didn't pan out, so he took his time and made sure that he tied Trump's hands as much as possible.

Do you have a link on the power grid hack?  I'd love to read more about that.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

11 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Hey, watch it pal. Corporations are people, you know.

ME,

They have always been considered people.  They simply haven't had all the rights of the their shareholders flowing through to them.

[all swedes are racist]

39 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Do you have a link on the power grid hack?  I'd love to read more about that.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-hackers-penetrated-us-electricity-grid-through-a-utility-in-vermont/2016/12/30/8fc90cc4-ceec-11e6-b8a2-8c2a61b0436f_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_electrichack-810pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.2f629a3da333

edit: it was a single laptop identified with malware code... no actual penetration to the grid, from what I understand 

[LongRider]

7 minutes ago, r'hllor's dirtbag lobster said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-hackers-penetrated-us-electricity-grid-through-a-utility-in-vermont/2016/12/30/8fc90cc4-ceec-11e6-b8a2-8c2a61b0436f_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_electrichack-810pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.2f629a3da333

What will the Orange Cheese Doo Doo say about this?  I expect along the lines of 'nuthin' to see here, move along.  My one luv Vladdi wouldn't do this to me.  Nope, not him.'

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

RDL,

Thank you.

[snake]

8 hours ago, mormont said:

 

Meh. Trump was always going to curtail press freedom, regardless of what Obama did or didn't do. It's one of the few policies he has that he is genuinely personally committed to.

What Trump was always going to do does not diminish what Obama has done.