You conservatives have lost your damn minds. Obama isn't losing to the joke that is the GOP and all its candidates and the only man who stands a chance, Ron Paul, is getting cheated by the media. I think the GOP is going to get dissolved very very soon. Too many extremists.
“OH MY GOD, OBAMA IS GOING TO MAKE A DEAL WITH THE RUSSIANS IF HE IS REELECTED!” That’s probably completely true, but minus the Manchurian Candidate-ness of the whole affair. Obama (or whoever is elected) is likely to make a deal with the Russians concerning the missiles we have that are facing Iran and Syria because Russia doesn’t like missiles so close to their periphery and because we want to reach some mutually beneficial result and such a deal will come post-election. What’s interesting to me about the actual incident is that it is extremely banal. Conversations between heads of state and former head states happen very frequently off the record. In general, we should be very happy that these conversations take place. Having an understanding between heads of state and their representatives makes trust or, at the very least, credibility a bit easier to establish. This can pay dividends in the future when we have to address crises. For example the off the books conversation between Kennedy and his cabinet and Nikita Khrushchev and his people where we promised to withdraw our missiles from Southern Italy and Turkey effectively ending the Cuban Missile Crisis. The parallels are immediately evident in this conversation because, once again, Russia is upset by our strategic missile placement. There is another issue here that is obliquely related - social media and the high-velocity at which information spreads has made it less likely for countries to do these off the table negotiations. This is good and bad; for every Iran-Contra scandal we are presumably able to avoid, we lose out on positive diplomatic interactions. Social media has likely had a chilling effect on diplomacy. Because we are the more free nation, the chilling effect on our actions is likely lower than the effect on more autocratic nations (except the most brutal dictatorships), but it takes two to tango. If a conversation between Chinese officials and U.S. officials gets out where both sides are trying to come to the most net-positive resolution of an issue, it would hurt the career of the Chinese official way more than our guy. The likely effect being that we are less likely able to reach these optimal resolutions. The conversation is banal in another sense as well. Other countries realize that the United States is a slave to an election cycle that really no longer makes sense. The new 4 year presidential term is 1 year trying to fill all the executive agency vacancies, 2 years of actual governance, and a 1 year cap-off of campaigning. That’s only 2 years of actual substantive performance in the first term. The 2 year period is cut-down further by creative use of filibuster. Because other countries realize that this is how our country works, they frequently try to pressure us during times outside that 2 year period of governance to leverage our own messed up system against us. You see this with the rhetoric from Israel toward Iran. Given this, Obama saying “I’ll have more flexibility after my election” is exactly what we would want all of our Presidents to say in his position. We wouldn’t want him to act rashly in a manner which could negatively affect our foreign policy at a time when he cannot devote his full attention to the matter. Neither would we want him to do so if he would go on to lose the election because you’d then have to tack on another year to the waiting time before someone like Romney could possibly get all his team into place to fully understand and control the ramifications of the decision.
Obama has already lost to the GOP over and over gain. Obama's endorsement has become known as the 'kiss of death' amongst Democrats. The 2010 election was one of the biggest beatings any party has ever taken in this country. Americans still hate the healthcare bill. He's lost many times to the Republicans.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/partisan_trends the numbers are available for you mark just use Google. Party Affiliation Rep: 36% Dem: 32.4% . Most measures have it about tied, so an equal number take Dem/Rep seriously.
When I use google this is what I find. Congress Approval Rating Drops To Lowest Level In History Of AP Poll
who could have expected this? -- Russia expects President Barack Obama to be more flexible on missile defense shield dispute By Associated Press, Published: November 8 MOSCOW — Russia expects Barack Obama to show more flexibility in a dispute over U.S. missile defense plans in Europe following his re-election as president, a top official said Thursday. The controversy over the planned missile shield has strained the relations between the U.S. and Russia. Moscow has rejected Washington’s assurances that the shield is intended to fend off potential missile threats from Iran and voiced concerns that the system could threaten Russia’s nuclear deterrent. In March, Obama, unaware that he was speaking on an open microphone, told Dmitry Medvedev, then Russia’s president, that he would have more flexibility on the issue after the November election. Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin appeared to be trying to remind Obama of his promise when he said Thursday that Moscow hopes that the U.S. president will listen to Russia’s concerns about the U.S.-led NATO missile defense for Europe. “We hope that President Obama after his re-election will be more flexible on the issue of taking into the account the opinions of Russia and others regarding a future configuration of NATO’s missile defense,” Rogozin told an international conference in Moscow. Russia has urged the U.S. to provide guarantees that any future shield is not aimed against it and threatened to target elements of the U.S. shield with missiles itself if no agreement is reached. U.S. promises to inform Moscow about details of the shield aren’t enough, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said Thursday, adding that Moscow will continue pushing for firm guarantees from Washington. Moscow is still keen to work with NATO countries if circumstances allow, however. The Kremlin greeted Obama’s re-election enthusiastically - in stark contrast to Obama’s conspicuous slowness to offer Vladimir Putin lukewarm congratulations on winning a third presidential term in March, after a campaign filled with anti-U.S. rhetoric. Putin wrote Obama a telegram expressing hope that the two countries’ relations would improve further and inviting Obama to visit Russia next year. Referring to comments that Republican challenger Mitt Romney had made during the campaign, Medvedev said he was “happy that the man who considers Russia (its) No. 1 geopolitical foe won’t be the president of this very large and important country.” Former Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said he hoped that being on a second term will allow Obama to focus more on relations with Russia than Romney would have with his first term. “When people come in, the first year basically falls through, they work for the second one, and the third one’s when the re-election campaign starts — that barely leaves them time to work with others,” he said. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...faa750-2979-11e2-aaa5-ac786110c486_story.html
all basso has left is posting anti-Obama articles/post/threads... Its okay bro, your local officials are the ones who directly impact your life not Mr. Obama
basso, what happened on Tuesday night? How could you have been so horribly, massively, stupendously in error? Has this caused you to question your sources for information? If not, why not? Do you enjoy being a rube?
did you really just try to refute a Democrat by citing Rasmussen? do you ever hit the F5 button on life?
I obviously have issues with the soloviki elite who control Russia in regards to the anti-democratic way they treat their own people, but their opposition to missile defense in neighboring countries is legit. They have every right to feel the US was trying to screw them over.
what's the mutually beneficial result? -- U.S. Cancels Part of Missile Defense That Russia Opposed By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN and MICHAEL R. GORDON MOSCOW — The United States has effectively canceled the final phase of a Europe-based missile defense system that was fiercely opposed by Russia and cited repeatedly by the Kremlin as a major obstacle to cooperation on nuclear arms reductions and other issues. Russian officials here have so far declined to comment on the announcement, which was made in Washington on Friday by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel as part of a plan to deploy additional ballistic missile interceptors to counter North Korea. The cancellation of some European-based defenses will allow resources to be shifted to protect against North Korea. Aides to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia said there would be no reaction until early next week, when they expect to be briefed by American officials. But Russian news accounts quickly raised the possibility that the decision could portend a breakthrough in what for years has been a largely intractable dispute between Russia and the United States. A headline by the Itar-Tass news agency declared, “U.S. abandons fourth phase of European missile defense system that causes the greatest objections from Russia.” Russian leaders on several occasions used meetings with President Obama to press their complaints about the missile defense program. At one such meeting, in South Korea last March, Mr. Obama was heard on a live microphone telling the outgoing Russian president Dmitri A. Medvedev in a private aside that he would have “more flexibility” to negotiate on missile defense after the November presidential election in November. Pentagon officials said that Russia’s longstanding objections played no role in the decision to reconfigure the missile interceptor program, which they said was based on the increased threat from North Korea and on technological difficulties and budget considerations related to the Europe-based program. “The missile defense decisions Secretary Hagel announced were in no way about Russia,” George Little, a Pentagon spokesman, said Saturday. Still, other Obama administration officials acknowledged potential benefits if the decision was well-received in Moscow, as well as the possibility of continued objections given that the United States is not backing away from its core plan for a land-based missile shield program in Central Europe. “There’s still an absolutely firm commitment to European missile defense, which is not about Russia; it’s about Iran these days,” said a senior administration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “If there are side benefits that accrue with Russia, so be it. But that wasn’t a primary driver.” Regardless, some experts said it could help relations by eliminating what the Russians had cited as one of their main objections — the interceptors in the final phase of the missile shield that might have the ability to target long-range intercontinental ballistic missiles, which are part of Russian’s nuclear arsenal. The Obama administration has sought cooperation from Russia on numerous issues, with varying degrees of success. Russia generally has supported the NATO-led military effort in Afghanistan and has helped to restrict Iran’s nuclear program by supporting economic sanctions. But the two countries have been deeply at odds over the war in Syria, and over human rights issues in Russia. Most recently, Mr. Obama has said he would like further reductions in the two countries’ nuclear arsenals, something Russia has said it would not consider without settling the dispute over missile defense. American experts insisted that the Russians’ concern over the antimissile program was exaggerated and that the system would not have jeopardized their strategic missiles had the final phase been developed. That Russian concern has now been addressed. “There is no threat to Russian missiles now,” said Steven Pifer, an arms control expert who has managed Russia policy from top positions at the State Department and the National Security Council. “If you listen to what the Russians have been saying for the last two years, this has been the biggest obstacle to things like cooperation with NATO.” “Potentially this is very big,” said Mr. Pifer, now of the Brookings Institution. “And it’s going to be very interesting seeing how the Russians react once they digest it.” In Washington, many officials have said they believe Russia’s real objections are not only about the particular capabilities of the missile shield but also about a more general political and strategic opposition to an expanding American military presence in Eastern Europe. Canceling only the final stage of the program does not address that concern, so it is possible that Russia’s position will remain unchanged. Sean Kay, a professor at Ohio Wesleyan University and expert in international security issue and Russian relations, said that the so-called fourth stage of the Europe-based missile defense program “was largely conceptual” and might never have been completed. Eliminating that portion of the program made sense, Mr. Kay said. “In effect, by sticking with a plan that was neither likely to work in the last stage but was creating significant and needless diplomatic hurdles at the same time, we gained nothing,” he said. At least some of the canceled interceptors were to have been based in Poland, which will still host less-advanced interceptors. In the past, efforts to restructure the antimissile program provoked sharp criticism in Poland, but this time reaction from Warsaw has been more muted. Analysts have said Poland’s main goal in hosting the interceptors has been having an American military presence there as a deterrent to Russia.
That we're not wasting hundreds of billions on a stupid missile shield that doesn't even work to protect the world from a soviet attack? This is possibly the only good consequence of the sequester.
