The simplest answer is often the correct one.
The point is that ‘Putin hates Clinton, but looooves Trump’ is pure conjecture. Nobody knows that.
We don’t know who or what Putin likes.
If anything, I would surmise that a continuation of the Obama era soft policies on Crimea and Syria would be more appealing then more American interference, particularly in Syria. There are boots on the ground in Syria, something Russia did not have to contend with before. It screws up their game, particularly when we bomb allies of Assad.
Clinton was way more likely to continue Obama’s soft touch then Trump. She was less likely to change the rules of engagement and return power to the generals on the ground. All these things would have been much better for Russia.
Maybe Putin does hate Hillary, most people seem too. She couldn’t even beat Trump, the most beatable candidate in history. But it doesn’t change the fact that the imperial ambitions of Russia would have been better served by Clinton.
And as far as election interference is concerned, we do know that the DNC ran Bernie out of the race. Isn’t you nose out of joint over that?
Have you seen ISIS’s map lately? It’s a sliver now.
Putin has said publicly he likes Trump and looks forward to working with him?
Based on the side Russia picked in the last US POTUS election, I’d surmise the opposite, but that’s just me.
Right. Despite HRC pulling in 3M more votes than Trump, “most” people hate her. You’ll have to unpack how to define “most” so that fits.
Absolutely. Not sure why the DNC matter would in any way invalidate the Russia thing though. Guess it’s like how Dems used to be soft means they lose the right to be upset by Russia.
If “Putin Hates Clinton” is conjecture, Pat…this statement is even moreso.
Also…is Trump now being given credit for the “defeat” of ISIS…which involved planning; relentless bombing and leadership assassination; logistics and coalition training and support; and building a coalition (albeit tenuous one); that began long before Trump took office?
If he is; someone needs to explain this to me.
You remember that secret plan to defeat isis in 100 days that he was always bragging about. It kicked in bigly. Bigly and fastly. He delivered the best words to these stupid generals and isis ate shit.
Boom. Winning.
Not to be pedantic, but it was 30 days. Bigly.
Well I meant that it was part of his 100d promise. I just can’t type good. So there. Humpf.
Hmm, I got no ticks that there were responses to my posts in this thread.
But, I absolutely agree that plans to take them out were in place, what was not, were appropriate chains of cammand to do so.
Under the Obama administration, all engagements of major proportion had to go through Washington.
After the election, the decisions were given to the generals on the ground. So then the planned actions could then take place. Once they did, the contraction of ISIS took place very quickly.
It wasn’t poor planning, it was the permission to do what needed to be done. The chain of command went to where it belonged, the battlefield.
When I have a chance I will answer the other posts.
Given recent events, I’d be curious about whether or not you still think Putin hating HRC and picking sides in the election is all conjecture?
Sorry, Pat…but it was not merely a case of Trump saying “Hey, Boys! I’m out! Go Kick some ass…” like many would have you believe.
@loppar is certainly more versed than I on this; but it was the relentless, 24-7 bombing and drone strikes…often for days at a time…combined with relentless precision strikes and raids from Special Operations; that took out ISIS Commanders; ISIS command and control; ISIS supply lines and depots; weapons depots…and literally thousands of fighters…all of which began long before Trump took office.
I am fully aware that the narrative is of President Obama being “tentative”; and that he restrictively “controlled” things from Washington…but there was more ordinance dropped and more Special Operations missions and Raids; and more foreign fighters killed than at anytime since Vietnam.
So again…I simply don’t understand the “Trump defeated ISIS” narrative.
Its very simple.
Trump defeated ISIS just like Obama got Bin Laden.
Neither is true.
One is partially true as Osama is dead. ISIS, and more importantly Islamic fundamentalism and terror, is not.
I will gladly accept that neither is true, rather than some ridiculous narrative that Trump rode in on his white horse and saved the world from the ineptitude of Washington; then in a wave of his sword, single-handedly rid the World of the scrooge of ISIS.
You would be doing me a kindness not to misrepresent my position here consistently. Russia trying to disrupt elections is nothing new and I never doubted they were a disrupter in ours.
What I am reserving judgement on is the President colluding specifically with Russia to tip the election in his favor by his knowing will. That’s it. It’s not more complicated than that.
Interestingly enough, Sen. Lankford from ‘Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs’ was on NPR yesterday talking about the Russian trolling of our social networks. The discovery, of the nature of the Russian trolling was to raise division in the country. As these systems went to work right away, under the committee’s watchful eye from the recent school shooting. The nature of the trolling was happening on both sides of the ‘gun issue’. They were watching this in real time, mind you.
The Committee has surmised, that Russia isn’t coming down on one side or another, but trying to raise the level of noise on issues that cause division in the country in order to destabilize the democracy, not to get what they think are friendly candidates, but to polarize the populous against each other. The transcript is below…
I didn’t say Trump defeated ISIS. What Trump did was loosen the “Rules of Engagement” to allow the generals on the ground could decide what they needed to do to get the desired result. Trump didn’t do anything, but loosen the rules. The military defeated ISIS.
Do you mind posting the quote and when it was stated?
I never stated it was, seeing as how I preceded it with “I would surmise…”
My apologies.
No worries, as always you have my utmost respect, Mu… 