Klobuchar going all in on Trump-Russia connection

[uti2]

Why does this Russia meme resonate so much with boring middle class White women?

It's ironic when in 2012 they were all laughing at Romney for wanting a 1980s-era policy regarding Russia. A lot of it is just uncritically regurgitating NYT talking points, to be honest.

[uti2]

Why does this Russia meme resonate so much with boring middle class White women?

It's ironic when in 2012 they were all laughing at Romney for wanting a 1980s-era policy regarding Russia. A lot of it is just uncritically regurgitating NYT talking points, to be honest.

In 2012 Russia had not done any of the stuff it's hated for now. The same people who accuse the Klobuchars of wanting to 'start WW3' are also the ones who see things in black and white: as if an country must be permanently Good or Evil for all of history. Instead of looking at the Democrats' attempted friendliness towards Russia in 2012 as evidence that maybe we're not all unreasonably anti-Russia or looking to pick a fight, they take it as another black mark of inconsistency. The notion of judging a government on the basis of its actions escapes them.

Both Hillary and Mccain ran anti-Russia campaigns in 2008 in light of the recent events that had taken place in the past couple of years in that time frame, the Dems gave Obama a carte blanche with regards to his relative pro-russia position for the bulk of his 2 terms.

[uti2]

By the way, I will go further and say that Obama's position on russia actually helped him with progressives/the anti-war crowd in the very close primary race he had against Clinton. He made Clinton look like an 'evil warmonger', 'look, she wanted to invade iraq and now she wants to invade russia, etc'.

[uti2]

I just noticed, as soon as I called out uti, he subtly shifted the goal posts from a hypothetical "they" who was "laughing at Romney in 2012" to Hillary Clinton and John McCain. If these two were so uncritically hawkish, then they were not among those laughing at Romney in 2012.

I did not move the goal posts. In 2008, both the Clinton and Mccain campaigns opposed Russia due to the expansionist activities of Russia in that contemporary time frame. You're acting as if something revolutionary happened in the past 3 years, it didn't. The only thing that has changed is Obama becoming slightly more antagonistic towards russia, which proves my point. When Obama spoke of positive relations of Russia, it was supported.

Clinton aligned her foreign policy views with Obama's after the fact when she took the Secretary of State job, she was working for her employer.

[uti2]

I just noticed, as soon as I called out uti, he subtly shifted the goal posts from a hypothetical "they" who was "laughing at Romney in 2012" to Hillary Clinton and John McCain. If these two were so uncritically hawkish, then they were not among those laughing at Romney in 2012.

I did not move the goal posts. In 2008, both the Clinton and Mccain campaigns opposed Russia due to the expansionist activities of Russia in that contemporary time frame. You're acting as if something revolutionary happened in the past 3 years, it didn't. The only thing that has changed is Obama becoming slightly more antagonistic towards russia, which proves my point. When Obama spoke of positive relations of Russia, it was supported.

Then who is the "they"? You original post never mentioned Clinton or McCain and neither did I, you brought them up.

In the past 3 years worlds events dramatically changed with respect to Russia. To state the trivial and obvious, for example, the title of this thread for instance would have made no sense 3 years ago.

Russia had already invaded Georgia in 2008, and was making aggressive moves towards their neighbors even in the recent years before 2008. That's why both Clinton and Mccain opposed Russia in 2008. What I'm pointing out is how Obama's policies towards Russia were hypocritically excused.

[uti2]

I just noticed, as soon as I called out uti, he subtly shifted the goal posts from a hypothetical "they" who was "laughing at Romney in 2012" to Hillary Clinton and John McCain. If these two were so uncritically hawkish, then they were not among those laughing at Romney in 2012.

I did not move the goal posts. In 2008, both the Clinton and Mccain campaigns opposed Russia due to the expansionist activities of Russia in that contemporary time frame. You're acting as if something revolutionary happened in the past 3 years, it didn't. The only thing that has changed is Obama becoming slightly more antagonistic towards russia, which proves my point. When Obama spoke of positive relations of Russia, it was supported.

Then who is the "they"? You original post never mentioned Clinton or McCain and neither did I, you brought them up.

In the past 3 years worlds events dramatically changed with respect to Russia. To state the trivial and obvious, for example, the title of this thread for instance would have made no sense 3 years ago.

Russia had already invaded Georgia in 2008, and was making aggressive moves towards their neighbors even in the recent years before 2008. That's why both Clinton and Mccain opposed Russia in 2008. What I'm pointing out is how Obama's policies towards Russia were hypocritically excused.

The premise of your post is that there's no difference between invading Georgia, and largely pulling back (except for South Ossetia), and annexing Crimea, invading the eastern Ukraine, trying to set up a puppet state, shooting down an airliner and denying it, hacking American citizens, and possibly trying to blackmail an American political party and president.

Actually, Russia did seize Abkhazia and South Ossetia, so the parallel to Crimea is right there.

Russia has been known to hack for decades going back to the Soviet Union, and China is known for hacking on an even larger scale.

So, again, what excuse did Obama have? Did Hillary and Mccain not have good reason to oppose Russia in 2008?

[uti2]

I just noticed, as soon as I called out uti, he subtly shifted the goal posts from a hypothetical "they" who was "laughing at Romney in 2012" to Hillary Clinton and John McCain. If these two were so uncritically hawkish, then they were not among those laughing at Romney in 2012.

I did not move the goal posts. In 2008, both the Clinton and Mccain campaigns opposed Russia due to the expansionist activities of Russia in that contemporary time frame. You're acting as if something revolutionary happened in the past 3 years, it didn't. The only thing that has changed is Obama becoming slightly more antagonistic towards russia, which proves my point. When Obama spoke of positive relations of Russia, it was supported.

Then who is the "they"? You original post never mentioned Clinton or McCain and neither did I, you brought them up.

In the past 3 years worlds events dramatically changed with respect to Russia. To state the trivial and obvious, for example, the title of this thread for instance would have made no sense 3 years ago.

Russia had already invaded Georgia in 2008, and was making aggressive moves towards their neighbors even in the recent years before 2008. That's why both Clinton and Mccain opposed Russia in 2008. What I'm pointing out is how Obama's policies towards Russia were hypocritically excused.

The premise of your post is that there's no difference between invading Georgia, and largely pulling back (except for South Ossetia), and annexing Crimea, invading the eastern Ukraine, trying to set up a puppet state, shooting down an airliner and denying it, hacking American citizens, and possibly trying to blackmail an American political party and president.

Actually, Russia did seize Abkhazia and South Ossetia, so the parallel to Crimea is right there.

Russia has been known to hack for decades going back to the Soviet Union, and China is known for hacking on an even larger scale.

So, again, what excuse did Obama have? Did Hillary and Mccain not have good reason to oppose Russia in 2008?

Dude, you are trying to fit a square into a circle and it's just not going to work. I see the events of the last 3 years as very significant, and you don't. That's a fair disagreement. But it's not hypocritical just because you disagree. The facts are the different, and my opinion is different because of the facts. This is a different thing from hypocrisy.

Besides that, I'm not even sure what your point is? Hillary, McCain, and Obama are different people with different positions. Again I'm not sure why you even brought them up because I was only responding to your OP which referenced an unnamed "they" who derided Romney in 2012 but wants to investigate Trump-Russia connections today. That's a perfectly valid position to hold, since the reasons for the investigation didn't exist in 2012.

The basis for maintaining an anti-russia political position already existed in 2008 and it was in fact the establishment consensus, which is why the political establishment on both sides, Mccain and Hillary strongly opposed Russia in 2008. Obama excused Russia, and when he did, Obama's positions on Russia were also excused.

There's a reason why the GWB administration dramatically turned against Russia in its last couple of years, to ignore that dynamic is extremely hypocritical.

[uti2]

I just noticed, as soon as I called out uti, he subtly shifted the goal posts from a hypothetical "they" who was "laughing at Romney in 2012" to Hillary Clinton and John McCain. If these two were so uncritically hawkish, then they were not among those laughing at Romney in 2012.

I did not move the goal posts. In 2008, both the Clinton and Mccain campaigns opposed Russia due to the expansionist activities of Russia in that contemporary time frame. You're acting as if something revolutionary happened in the past 3 years, it didn't. The only thing that has changed is Obama becoming slightly more antagonistic towards russia, which proves my point. When Obama spoke of positive relations of Russia, it was supported.

Then who is the "they"? You original post never mentioned Clinton or McCain and neither did I, you brought them up.

In the past 3 years worlds events dramatically changed with respect to Russia. To state the trivial and obvious, for example, the title of this thread for instance would have made no sense 3 years ago.

Russia had already invaded Georgia in 2008, and was making aggressive moves towards their neighbors even in the recent years before 2008. That's why both Clinton and Mccain opposed Russia in 2008. What I'm pointing out is how Obama's policies towards Russia were hypocritically excused.

The premise of your post is that there's no difference between invading Georgia, and largely pulling back (except for South Ossetia), and annexing Crimea, invading the eastern Ukraine, trying to set up a puppet state, shooting down an airliner and denying it, hacking American citizens, and possibly trying to blackmail an American political party and president.

Actually, Russia did seize Abkhazia and South Ossetia, so the parallel to Crimea is right there.

Russia has been known to hack for decades going back to the Soviet Union, and China is known for hacking on an even larger scale.

So, again, what excuse did Obama have? Did Hillary and Mccain not have good reason to oppose Russia in 2008?

Dude, you are trying to fit a square into a circle and it's just not going to work. I see the events of the last 3 years as very significant, and you don't. That's a fair disagreement. But it's not hypocritical just because you disagree. The facts are the different, and my opinion is different because of the facts. This is a different thing from hypocrisy.

Besides that, I'm not even sure what your point is? Hillary, McCain, and Obama are different people with different positions. Again I'm not sure why you even brought them up because I was only responding to your OP which referenced an unnamed "they" who derided Romney in 2012 but wants to investigate Trump-Russia connections today. That's a perfectly valid position to hold, since the reasons for the investigation didn't exist in 2012.

The basis for maintaining an anti-russia political position already existed in 2008 and it was in fact the establishment consensus, which is why the political establishment on both sides, Mccain and Hillary strongly opposed Russia in 2008. Obama excused Russia, and when he did, Obama's positions on Russia were also excused.

There's a reason why the GWB administration dramatically turned against Russia in its last couple of years, to ignore that dynamic is extremely hypocritical.

The bolded line is your assertion. That does not make it fact. You don't get to state your opinion, and then label anyone not adhering to it hypocritical.

I stated my opinion and it has no internal inconsistency. I hold it sincerely. I find it pretty insulting that you are effectively accusing me of dishonesty, and continue to pursue that accusation despite not being able to defend it intellectually.

The establishment does not get to determine the "consensus". If that was true, TPP would be law today, instead of dead. Obama had a different position on Russia in 2008 than Clinton or McCain, which was a valid position to hold whether you disagree with it or not, and the American people picked him by a big margin.

As far as the election goes, Russia Today and Russian state media enthusiastically backed Obama in both 2008 and 2012 vs. his opponents. Don't forget that Obama also bragged on record to Medvedev on of his flexibility after the election.

You can also blame the Republican FBI which had an impact in causing republican voters to 'return home', but who appointed Comey instead of a loyal democrat as head of the FBI in the first place? It was Obama.

So, ultimately, all these issues regarding both the FBI and Russia go back to Obama who failed to appropriately address them. My point is that when he was failing to address these issues, there were constant excuses being made for Obama.

About the last line, Obama and Mccain were in a close race until the economic collapse, and if you love russian conspiracies, there are a large number of them about how russia tried to sabotage the US economy in 2008, which of course helped Obama win.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/28/financial-terrorism-suspected-in-08-economic-crash/

[uti2]

I just noticed, as soon as I called out uti, he subtly shifted the goal posts from a hypothetical "they" who was "laughing at Romney in 2012" to Hillary Clinton and John McCain. If these two were so uncritically hawkish, then they were not among those laughing at Romney in 2012.

I did not move the goal posts. In 2008, both the Clinton and Mccain campaigns opposed Russia due to the expansionist activities of Russia in that contemporary time frame. You're acting as if something revolutionary happened in the past 3 years, it didn't. The only thing that has changed is Obama becoming slightly more antagonistic towards russia, which proves my point. When Obama spoke of positive relations of Russia, it was supported.

Then who is the "they"? You original post never mentioned Clinton or McCain and neither did I, you brought them up.

In the past 3 years worlds events dramatically changed with respect to Russia. To state the trivial and obvious, for example, the title of this thread for instance would have made no sense 3 years ago.

Russia had already invaded Georgia in 2008, and was making aggressive moves towards their neighbors even in the recent years before 2008. That's why both Clinton and Mccain opposed Russia in 2008. What I'm pointing out is how Obama's policies towards Russia were hypocritically excused.

The premise of your post is that there's no difference between invading Georgia, and largely pulling back (except for South Ossetia), and annexing Crimea, invading the eastern Ukraine, trying to set up a puppet state, shooting down an airliner and denying it, hacking American citizens, and possibly trying to blackmail an American political party and president.

Actually, Russia did seize Abkhazia and South Ossetia, so the parallel to Crimea is right there.

Russia has been known to hack for decades going back to the Soviet Union, and China is known for hacking on an even larger scale.

So, again, what excuse did Obama have? Did Hillary and Mccain not have good reason to oppose Russia in 2008?

Dude, you are trying to fit a square into a circle and it's just not going to work. I see the events of the last 3 years as very significant, and you don't. That's a fair disagreement. But it's not hypocritical just because you disagree. The facts are the different, and my opinion is different because of the facts. This is a different thing from hypocrisy.

Besides that, I'm not even sure what your point is? Hillary, McCain, and Obama are different people with different positions. Again I'm not sure why you even brought them up because I was only responding to your OP which referenced an unnamed "they" who derided Romney in 2012 but wants to investigate Trump-Russia connections today. That's a perfectly valid position to hold, since the reasons for the investigation didn't exist in 2012.

The basis for maintaining an anti-russia political position already existed in 2008 and it was in fact the establishment consensus, which is why the political establishment on both sides, Mccain and Hillary strongly opposed Russia in 2008. Obama excused Russia, and when he did, Obama's positions on Russia were also excused.

There's a reason why the GWB administration dramatically turned against Russia in its last couple of years, to ignore that dynamic is extremely hypocritical.

The bolded line is your assertion. That does not make it fact. You don't get to state your opinion, and then label anyone not adhering to it hypocritical.

I stated my opinion and it has no internal inconsistency. I hold it sincerely. I find it pretty insulting that you are effectively accusing me of dishonesty, and continue to pursue that accusation despite not being able to defend it intellectually.

The establishment does not get to determine the "consensus". If that was true, TPP would be law today, instead of dead. Obama had a different position on Russia in 2008 than Clinton or McCain, which was a valid position to hold whether you disagree with it or not, and the American people picked him by a big margin.

As far as the election goes, Russia Today and Russian state media enthusiastically backed Obama in both 2008 and 2012 vs. his opponents. Don't forget that Obama also bragged on record to Medvedev on of his flexibility after the election.

You can also blame the Republican FBI which had an impact in causing republican voters to 'return home', but who appointed Comey instead of a loyal democrat as head of the FBI in the first place? It was Obama.

So, ultimately, all these issues regarding both the FBI and Russia go back to Obama who failed to appropriately address them. My point is that when he was failing to address these issues, there were constant excuses being made for Obama.

About the last line, Obama and Mccain were in a close race until the economic collapse, and if you love russian conspiracies, there are a large number of them about how russia tried to sabotage the US economy in 2008, which of course helped Obama win.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/28/financial-terrorism-suspected-in-08-economic-crash/

Obama's the one in the middle here. Trump is right that there's no sin in being backed by a foreign government. Good relations are generally good. Obama also wanted to run a bipartisan administration and thought Comey would be a professional, as he had a good reputation up to that point. He even ran to Ashcroft's hospital bed in 2004 to confront him over an order her thought was illegal.

My point is that you are attacking Obama from one extreme (he was too soft on Russia) whereas Trump and jfern are attacking him from another extreme (he wants to start a 'new cold war'). He's taking a middle road in between your two positions. It shows that he's a reasonable person who makes his calls based on evidence, not predispositions for or against Russia. Even if he's wrong, it's not hypocritical to take a middle position.

How are you arbitrarily defining what the 'middle position' is? Trump said back in the summer of 2015, that sanctions would only be removed if Russia 'behaved', that's about a middle position as one can take. Is a middle position simply a trademarked position that's been taken by Obama?

[uti2]

I just noticed, as soon as I called out uti, he subtly shifted the goal posts from a hypothetical "they" who was "laughing at Romney in 2012" to Hillary Clinton and John McCain. If these two were so uncritically hawkish, then they were not among those laughing at Romney in 2012.

I did not move the goal posts. In 2008, both the Clinton and Mccain campaigns opposed Russia due to the expansionist activities of Russia in that contemporary time frame. You're acting as if something revolutionary happened in the past 3 years, it didn't. The only thing that has changed is Obama becoming slightly more antagonistic towards russia, which proves my point. When Obama spoke of positive relations of Russia, it was supported.

Then who is the "they"? You original post never mentioned Clinton or McCain and neither did I, you brought them up.

In the past 3 years worlds events dramatically changed with respect to Russia. To state the trivial and obvious, for example, the title of this thread for instance would have made no sense 3 years ago.

Russia had already invaded Georgia in 2008, and was making aggressive moves towards their neighbors even in the recent years before 2008. That's why both Clinton and Mccain opposed Russia in 2008. What I'm pointing out is how Obama's policies towards Russia were hypocritically excused.

The premise of your post is that there's no difference between invading Georgia, and largely pulling back (except for South Ossetia), and annexing Crimea, invading the eastern Ukraine, trying to set up a puppet state, shooting down an airliner and denying it, hacking American citizens, and possibly trying to blackmail an American political party and president.

Actually, Russia did seize Abkhazia and South Ossetia, so the parallel to Crimea is right there.

Russia has been known to hack for decades going back to the Soviet Union, and China is known for hacking on an even larger scale.

So, again, what excuse did Obama have? Did Hillary and Mccain not have good reason to oppose Russia in 2008?

Dude, you are trying to fit a square into a circle and it's just not going to work. I see the events of the last 3 years as very significant, and you don't. That's a fair disagreement. But it's not hypocritical just because you disagree. The facts are the different, and my opinion is different because of the facts. This is a different thing from hypocrisy.

Besides that, I'm not even sure what your point is? Hillary, McCain, and Obama are different people with different positions. Again I'm not sure why you even brought them up because I was only responding to your OP which referenced an unnamed "they" who derided Romney in 2012 but wants to investigate Trump-Russia connections today. That's a perfectly valid position to hold, since the reasons for the investigation didn't exist in 2012.

The basis for maintaining an anti-russia political position already existed in 2008 and it was in fact the establishment consensus, which is why the political establishment on both sides, Mccain and Hillary strongly opposed Russia in 2008. Obama excused Russia, and when he did, Obama's positions on Russia were also excused.

There's a reason why the GWB administration dramatically turned against Russia in its last couple of years, to ignore that dynamic is extremely hypocritical.

The bolded line is your assertion. That does not make it fact. You don't get to state your opinion, and then label anyone not adhering to it hypocritical.

I stated my opinion and it has no internal inconsistency. I hold it sincerely. I find it pretty insulting that you are effectively accusing me of dishonesty, and continue to pursue that accusation despite not being able to defend it intellectually.

The establishment does not get to determine the "consensus". If that was true, TPP would be law today, instead of dead. Obama had a different position on Russia in 2008 than Clinton or McCain, which was a valid position to hold whether you disagree with it or not, and the American people picked him by a big margin.

As far as the election goes, Russia Today and Russian state media enthusiastically backed Obama in both 2008 and 2012 vs. his opponents. Don't forget that Obama also bragged on record to Medvedev on of his flexibility after the election.

You can also blame the Republican FBI which had an impact in causing republican voters to 'return home', but who appointed Comey instead of a loyal democrat as head of the FBI in the first place? It was Obama.

So, ultimately, all these issues regarding both the FBI and Russia go back to Obama who failed to appropriately address them. My point is that when he was failing to address these issues, there were constant excuses being made for Obama.

About the last line, Obama and Mccain were in a close race until the economic collapse, and if you love russian conspiracies, there are a large number of them about how russia tried to sabotage the US economy in 2008, which of course helped Obama win.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/28/financial-terrorism-suspected-in-08-economic-crash/

Obama's the one in the middle here. Trump is right that there's no sin in being backed by a foreign government. Good relations are generally good. Obama also wanted to run a bipartisan administration and thought Comey would be a professional, as he had a good reputation up to that point. He even ran to Ashcroft's hospital bed in 2004 to confront him over an order her thought was illegal.

My point is that you are attacking Obama from one extreme (he was too soft on Russia) whereas Trump and jfern are attacking him from another extreme (he wants to start a 'new cold war'). He's taking a middle road in between your two positions. It shows that he's a reasonable person who makes his calls based on evidence, not predispositions for or against Russia. Even if he's wrong, it's not hypocritical to take a middle position.

How are you arbitrarily defining what the 'middle position' is? Trump said back in the summer of 2015, that sanctions would only be removed if Russia 'behaved', that's about a middle position as one can take. Is a middle position simply a trademarked position that's been taken by Obama?

Do you agree that Trump's position is more pro-Russia than Obama's?
Do you agree that McCain's position is more anti-Russia than Obama's?

If both of those statements are true, how is Obama's position not in the middle of those two?

Also, I still don't see how his position is 'hypocritical' just because it doesn't line up with either Trump's or McCain's extreme poles.

No, as a parallel, Obama's '07/'08 positions regarding Russia were about in line with Trump's '15/'16 positions. Likewise, Mccain and Hillary's '08 position regarding Russia were pretty much in line with Hillary's '16 position.

[uti2]

Again, you keep ignoring the fact that things happen. This is like saying FDR's '44/'45 positions regarding Japan are in line with some insane quack who wants the U.S. to attack Japan today. Meaningless and sophist.

And what happened? All that happened was Obama's personal views arbitrarily changing. Crimea already had its parallel with Abkhazia and South Ossetia and Obama didn't do anything back then.

So what you're suggesting is that Obama's narcissism and ego defines the 'moderate position', I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy.

[uti2]

Again, you keep ignoring the fact that things happen. This is like saying FDR's '44/'45 positions regarding Japan are in line with some insane quack who wants the U.S. to attack Japan today. Meaningless and sophist.

And what happened? All that happened was Obama's personal views arbitrarily changing. Crimea already had its parallel with Abkhazia and South Ossetia and Obama didn't do anything back then.

So what you're suggesting is that Obama's narcissism and ego defines the 'moderate position', I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy.

No, you're lodging a bunch of insults like 'narcissist', 'egotist' and 'hypocrite' without being able to defend why intellectually, short of making the same assertions over and over again. You're embarassing yourself, and it looks bad.

Then why did Hillary maintain a consistent position regarding Russia in her '08 campaign and her '16 campaign?

[uti2]

Again, you keep ignoring the fact that things happen. This is like saying FDR's '44/'45 positions regarding Japan are in line with some insane quack who wants the U.S. to attack Japan today. Meaningless and sophist.

And what happened? All that happened was Obama's personal views arbitrarily changing. Crimea already had its parallel with Abkhazia and South Ossetia and Obama didn't do anything back then.

So what you're suggesting is that Obama's narcissism and ego defines the 'moderate position', I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy.

No, you're lodging a bunch of insults like 'narcissist', 'egotist' and 'hypocrite' without being able to defend why intellectually, short of making the same assertions over and over again. You're embarassing yourself, and it looks bad.

Then why did Hillary maintain a consistent position regarding Russia in her '08 campaign and her '16 campaign?

Because she was relatively hawkish in '08 (or consensus, as you put it), and between '08 and '16 Russia did a bunch of bad stuff that would not give people like her any reason to change their relatively aggressive stance.

'bad stuff' is quite an arbitrary term, and enough 'bad stuff' had been done in the immediate years leading up to '08 for the formerly pro-Russia GWB administration to also turn on Russia. There's the exact parallel to Obama.

[uti2]

Again, you keep ignoring the fact that things happen. This is like saying FDR's '44/'45 positions regarding Japan are in line with some insane quack who wants the U.S. to attack Japan today. Meaningless and sophist.

And what happened? All that happened was Obama's personal views arbitrarily changing. Crimea already had its parallel with Abkhazia and South Ossetia and Obama didn't do anything back then.

So what you're suggesting is that Obama's narcissism and ego defines the 'moderate position', I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy.

No, you're lodging a bunch of insults like 'narcissist', 'egotist' and 'hypocrite' without being able to defend why intellectually, short of making the same assertions over and over again. You're embarassing yourself, and it looks bad.

Then why did Hillary maintain a consistent position regarding Russia in her '08 campaign and her '16 campaign?

Because she was relatively hawkish in '08 (or consensus, as you put it), and between '08 and '16 Russia did a bunch of bad stuff that would not give people like her any reason to change their relatively aggressive stance.

'bad stuff' is quite an arbitrary term, and enough 'bad stuff' had been done in the immediate years leading up to '08 for the formerly pro-Russia GWB administration to also turn on Russia. There's the exact parallel to Obama.

Eh, you just keep going back to the same talking points over and over again. I've already answered you in the thread.

You're giving reasons for which precedent had already been set by Obama, but that Obama had chosen to ignore. Crimea, which was ignored in the context of Abkhazia and South Ossetia by Obama.

[uti2]

Again, you keep ignoring the fact that things happen. This is like saying FDR's '44/'45 positions regarding Japan are in line with some insane quack who wants the U.S. to attack Japan today. Meaningless and sophist.

And what happened? All that happened was Obama's personal views arbitrarily changing. Crimea already had its parallel with Abkhazia and South Ossetia and Obama didn't do anything back then.

So what you're suggesting is that Obama's narcissism and ego defines the 'moderate position', I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy.

No, you're lodging a bunch of insults like 'narcissist', 'egotist' and 'hypocrite' without being able to defend why intellectually, short of making the same assertions over and over again. You're embarassing yourself, and it looks bad.

Then why did Hillary maintain a consistent position regarding Russia in her '08 campaign and her '16 campaign?

Because she was relatively hawkish in '08 (or consensus, as you put it), and between '08 and '16 Russia did a bunch of bad stuff that would not give people like her any reason to change their relatively aggressive stance.

'bad stuff' is quite an arbitrary term, and enough 'bad stuff' had been done in the immediate years leading up to '08 for the formerly pro-Russia GWB administration to also turn on Russia. There's the exact parallel to Obama.

Eh, you just keep going back to the same talking points over and over again. I've already answered you in the thread.

You're giving reasons for which precedent had already been set by Obama, but that Obama had chosen to ignore. Crimea, which was ignored in the context of Abkhazia and South Ossetia by Obama.

Not the same, since Abkhazia and South Ossetia have been disputed territories since the 1990s, and Abkhazia has not been in Georgian control since soon after the dissolution of the USSR. South Ossetia, meanwhile, has a population of only 53,000. Russia claims neither of these states, rather it recognizes their so-called independence.

Crimea, on the other hand, has a population of 2.3 million. It was never previously disputed, and Russia simply annexed it. This is orders of magnitude different. And that's not even getting into the war in eastern Ukraine or all the other things that Putin has done since 2014.

Crimea gained status as an autonomous republic in 1991. Abkhazia actually has the same autonomous republic classification as Crimea.

[uti2]

Again, you keep ignoring the fact that things happen. This is like saying FDR's '44/'45 positions regarding Japan are in line with some insane quack who wants the U.S. to attack Japan today. Meaningless and sophist.

And what happened? All that happened was Obama's personal views arbitrarily changing. Crimea already had its parallel with Abkhazia and South Ossetia and Obama didn't do anything back then.

So what you're suggesting is that Obama's narcissism and ego defines the 'moderate position', I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy.

No, you're lodging a bunch of insults like 'narcissist', 'egotist' and 'hypocrite' without being able to defend why intellectually, short of making the same assertions over and over again. You're embarassing yourself, and it looks bad.

Then why did Hillary maintain a consistent position regarding Russia in her '08 campaign and her '16 campaign?

Because she was relatively hawkish in '08 (or consensus, as you put it), and between '08 and '16 Russia did a bunch of bad stuff that would not give people like her any reason to change their relatively aggressive stance.

'bad stuff' is quite an arbitrary term, and enough 'bad stuff' had been done in the immediate years leading up to '08 for the formerly pro-Russia GWB administration to also turn on Russia. There's the exact parallel to Obama.

Eh, you just keep going back to the same talking points over and over again. I've already answered you in the thread.

You're giving reasons for which precedent had already been set by Obama, but that Obama had chosen to ignore. Crimea, which was ignored in the context of Abkhazia and South Ossetia by Obama.

Not the same, since Abkhazia and South Ossetia have been disputed territories since the 1990s, and Abkhazia has not been in Georgian control since soon after the dissolution of the USSR. South Ossetia, meanwhile, has a population of only 53,000. Russia claims neither of these states, rather it recognizes their so-called independence.

Crimea, on the other hand, has a population of 2.3 million. It was never previously disputed, and Russia simply annexed it. This is orders of magnitude different. And that's not even getting into the war in eastern Ukraine or all the other things that Putin has done since 2014.

Crimea gained status as an autonomous republic in 1991. Abkhazia actually has the same autonomous republic classification as Crimea.

Are you seriously trying to argue that Crimea was an independent country from 1991 to 2014?

They voted for pro-russian politicians consistently. What changed was the 2014 Ukranian revolution, where the predominant pro-russian party, called the 'party of regions' was effectively purged, eliminating organized pro-russian political elements, this is what caused the russian intervention.