Obama hot mike "More flexibility after the election to negotiate giving up missile de

[CosmicCowboy]

SEOUL, South Korea — At the tail end of his 90 minute meeting with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev Monday, President Obama said that he would have “more flexibility” to deal with controversial issues such as missile defense, but incoming Russian President Vladimir Putin needs to give him “space.”
The exchange was picked up by microphones as reporters were let into the room for remarks by the two leaders.
The exchange:
President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.
President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…
President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.
President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.

[ChumpDumper]

And?

[CosmicCowboy]

A reasonable interpretation of these comments could be:

"Once I get re-elected I can go ahead and do what the people wouldn't want me to do. If I did this now I couldn't get re-elected."

[ChumpDumper]

Really, how many votes do you think hinge on this?

I'm not sure many want a renewed nuclear arms race with Russia.

[elbamba]

Really, how many votes do you think hinge on this?

I'm not sure many want a renewed nuclear arms race with Russia.

Probably not many votes in New York or California. But probably plenty of votes in Ohio and Florida.

I'm not sure many want a president who refuses to take a stand on the issue simply because it would not be in his political interest.

Perhaps he is out Romneying Mitt.

[ChumpDumper]

Probably not many votes in New York or California. But probably plenty of votes in Ohio and Florida.Ohio is afraid of being nuked by Russia?


I'm not sure many want a president who refuses to take a stand on the issue simply because it would not be in his political interest.Then no one should ever be elected president. What a stupid thing to say.

[elbamba]

Ohio is afraid of being nuked by Russia?.

Ohio isn't afraid of being nuked by Russia?



Then no one should ever be elected president. What a stupid thing to say.

You do not want a sitting president, when faced with a foreign national security issue, to address said issue, but instead, wait until there is less political consequence. What a stupid thing to think.

Why not just abdicate the presidency for the next 8 months? Well, I guess that is technically what is happening. The president has effectively become the Queen of England for the interim.

[CosmicCowboy]

Even worse, he is just the campaigner in chief. Being President requires making tough decisions about what is in US best interest. He can't let that get in the way of being re-elected.

[RandomGuy]

A reasonable interpretation of these comments could be:

"Once I get re-elected I can go ahead and do what the people wouldn't want me to do. If I did this now I couldn't get re-elected."

Meh. The average voter can't find their own country on a map, let alone give you a single tangible detail about the foreign policy and military implications of missle defenses.

Nor can they be bothered with such details.

Do you think this kind of talk is limited to Democratic presidents?

[ChumpDumper]

Ohio isn't afraid of being nuked by Russia?Yes, they are building fallout shelters and doing duck and cover drills at schools.




You do not want a sitting president, when faced with a foreign national security issue, to address said issue, but instead, wait until there is less political consequence. What a stupid thing to think.

Why not just abdicate the presidency for the next 8 months? Well, I guess that is technically what is happening. The president has effectively become the Queen of England for the interim.Every president running for reelection does this.

Every one.

It's very stupid to think otherwise.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Should it be limited to any president?

[ChumpDumper]

It's a matter of Ohio nuclear defense!

[ChumpDumper]

Should it be limited to any president?It's electoral politics.

If one wants an autocrat, one can say so.

[RandomGuy]

Should it be limited to any president?

Elections have been affecting our domestic and foreign policies since, well forever.

This whole thing is just more Coolaid for the converted.

The "outrage du jour" served up by the right wing Fake Outrage Machine, if you will.

Press a button, get a steaming hot cup of phony outrage about Obama.

There are a hell of a lot of genuine things to be irritated about Obama, but instead, we get shit like this? Really?

[ChumpDumper]

From what I heard, Obama's plan was pretty ambitious as announced. If he were completely cowed by the election, I doubt anything like tactical nukes would have been brought up at all.

[MannyIsGod]

A reasonable interpretation of these comments could be:

"Once I get re-elected I can go ahead and do what the people wouldn't want me to do. If I did this now I couldn't get re-elected."

Who would have thought about that? New political ground!


Oh wait, same old politics we've ever had.

[boutons_deux]

Repugs are running on killing the EPA/OSHA/Clean Water, which is NOT what Repug voters want them to do.

[101A]

Hilarious thread.

People defending or accusing in this would be doing the EXACT opposite if GWB had been caught saying this (except Chump, he probably would have just remained silent).

Way to tribe up guys.

My opinion:

Yes, a Republican might have said something similar - and obviously ALL political participants modify their actions during an election year. Is it wrong? Of course; politicians should take stands and stick to them; elections be damned.

[Winehole23]

James Joyner has one of the most sensible responses (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/obamas-foreign-policy-etch-a-sketch/) to the “flexibility” non-controversy:
Similarly, if reelected, the president isn’t going to do a complete 180 on missile defense–but he’d have more breathing room without having to make policy under a campaign microscope. That’s just reality.
Of course, it’s true that elections constrain what any elected leader can do during the run-up to an election, and electioneering sometimes requires more hard-line posturing for the benefit of domestic audiences (which incidentally accounts for the recent intensified official criticism of the U.S. inside Russia ahead of Putin’s election). Viewed this way, Obama is just stating the obvious about the limitations that exist during an election year. The overwrought response to these remarks from some Republicans helps prove the point. If Obama is re-elected, there will be less political pressure at home after the election is over, but it doesn’t mean that there will be no constraints on what Obama does. As James says, it doesn’t mean that Obama is going to turn on a dime on an issue where he has been fairly uncompromising. The people most convinced that Obama’s “flexibility” comments mean something are the ones who already believe (wrongly) that Obama has abjectly sold out U.S. and allied interests to the Russians from day one. Meanwhile, in the real world Obama has been persistent in pursuing missile defense in Europe despite Russian complaints.


What no one else seems to be considering is that these remarks were little more than throwaway lines used to placate the Russians. The reason so many people seem ready to attach so much significance to these “flexibility” comments is that they were captured by a live microphone and they weren’t supposed to be public. However, as Drezner pointed out again (http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/03/06/pssst_people_can_bs_in_private_too) recently, just because something was intended to be kept private doesn’t make it true.

Even if true, it doesn’t follow that Obama’s reference to “flexibility” means what confirmed opponents of his “reset” policy think it does. When a Russian skeptic hears Obama say that he just needs to win re-election before he can be more “flexible” on missile defense, he probably assumes this is just a way to blow off Russian concerns without giving unnecessary offense. Based on Obama’s actual record on missile defense (and not the fantasy version (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2012/03/26/the-gops-dated-and-shallow-foreign-policy-criticism-ii/) circulated by partisan opponents), this would probably be the right way to interpret the remarks.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2012/03/26/obama-and-missile-defense-fantasy-vs-reality/

[101A]

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2012/03/26/obama-and-missile-defense-fantasy-vs-reality/


So he was just blowing off the Russians?

Fair enough.

But now THAT cat is out of the bag.

[Winehole23]

perhaps. discretion is the better part of valor, etc., etc..

[Winehole23]

Dan Drezner reviews (http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/03/26/the_dirty_little_secret_about_second_term_presiden ts) the records of second-term Presidents to show that re-election doesn’t normally mean a more ideological second term:
What’s striking, however, is that recent second-termers have not reverted to their ideological bliss point — if anything it’s been the reverse. Part of this was circumstances. Reagan had, in Gorbachev, a real negotiating partner. Bush had to be more circumspect on Iran and North Korea after the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan. All three presidents had less favorable legislatures in their second term than their first.

What gives? I’d argue that precisely because presidents have fewer foreign policy constraints than domestic ones, they feel free to pursue their preferred set of policies from day one. Reality, however, quickly determines which ideas are working and which do not have any staying power. Over time, therefore, presidents change tack until they hit on a more successful formula. This usually means overcoming one’s personal ideology and embracing new ideas.
That makes sense, but what Drezner doesn’t discuss enough here is the extent to which second-term administrations really are freed from the constraints imposed by their own party bases. Granting for the sake of argument that the second Reagan and Bush terms were more “liberal” than their first (a very debatable proposition in Bush’s case), the reason for that is obvious enough: they no longer had to appeal to their core constituencies, and they were free to ignore them even more than they had before because they no longer needed them to win an election. Many movement conservatives found the second Reagan and Bush terms to be very disappointing for just this reason.

If not for presidential term limits, a second-term administration might very well become more ideologically ambitious. Woodrow Wilson’s second term stands out as a calamitous example of what could happen under the pre-22nd Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxxii) system. Since modern second-term presidents don’t have to keep their party bases particularly motivated and happy, they will usually look for something that will give them a legacy regardless of the backlash from the party base.http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2012/03/26/second-term-presidents-and-their-search-for-legacies/

[Winehole23]

Pete Wehner jumps on (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/03/26/obama-comments-to-medvedev/) the manufactured outrage bandwagon over (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/president-obama-asks-medvedev-for-space-on-missile-defense-after-my-election-i-have-more-flexibility/) Obama’s “flexibility” comments (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2012/03/26/obamas-supposed-post-election-flexibility-on-missile-defense/):

And can anyone guess what it means when Obama says he’ll have “more flexibility” after his “last election”? A hint: This is a president who shelved his predecessor’s plan to build a missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic in order to “reset” our relations with Russia – and Obama did this without receiving any concessions from Russia in advance or since. (Russia has, in fact, been a consistent thorn in our side.) This action was also (rightly) seen as a betrayal by our allies in Eastern Europe. We can only imagine what a second Obama term would mean in terms of unwise concessions and reckless agreements with Russia, Iran, North Korea and countless other nations.
I’m sure Wehner can imagine all sorts of things. The “betrayal” of eastern European allies is imaginary, and Wehner’s description of the concessions the U.S. has received from Russia also has nothing to do with reality. Most Poles didn’t support (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/05/27/the_polish_tiger?page=0,1) Bush’s plan anyway, and the radar installation in the Czech Republic was wildly unpopular (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003736023_bushmissile06.html). In fact, Poles favored (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2009/09/19/unrepresentative/) Obama’s decision by a wide margin (http://www.rp.pl/artykul/365385.html) as good for Poland. The Polish and Czech governments were understandably annoyed about how they were informed of the decision, but that is a different matter. The idea that adopting a different missile defense plan represents a “betrayal” of allies when the U.S. is currently cooperating with eastern European allies on the new plan is absurd (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/06/16/whos_under_the_bus?page=0,2). Russia has obviously been cooperative on issues related to Afghanistan and Iran. It is this cooperation that so infuriates opponents of the “reset” because they prefer relations with Russia to be adversarial. Wehner’s summary of the last three years is revealing in that it shows how much he relies on accusations from three years ago that weren’t true at the time.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2012/03/26/the-gops-dated-and-shallow-foreign-policy-criticism-ii/

[Winehole23]

2009 SpursTalk thread:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135188

[Phenomanul]

I'm not an Obama supporter in the least... but this truly a case of "much ado about nothing"...

[Sec24Row7]

Meh. The average voter can't find their own country on a map, let alone give you a single tangible detail about the foreign policy and military implications of missle defenses.

Nor can they be bothered with such details.

Do you think this kind of talk is limited to Democratic presidents?


The average voter is flammable when heated to 10 million degrees though, which is something that could be pointed out to them that they might care about.

"Me Burn at 10,000,000,000 degrees?"

"yes"

"Missiles Stop Burn?"

"yes"

"Big Man no want missiles?"

"no"

"Me no like Big Man"

[CosmicCowboy]

The average voter is flammable when heated to 10 million degrees though, which is something that could be pointed out to them that they might care about.

"Me Burn at 10,000,000,000 degrees?"

"yes"

"Missiles Stop Burn?"

"yes"

"Big Man no want missiles?"

"no"

"Me no like Big Man"

:lol

:toast

[ElNono]

I would interpret that as:

Win election > popular support > pressure Congress > room to negotiate

I mean, do you really think a president (in this case Barry, but it could be from any party) would start negotiations with Russia over missile defense on an election year, when Congress is basically impaired and the ankle biters are around the corner?

[SA210]

A reasonable interpretation of these comments could be:

"Once I get re-elected I can go ahead and do what the people wouldn't want me to do. If I did this now I couldn't get re-elected."

[ChumpDumper]

Man, SA210 gives vaginas a bad name.

[RandomGuy]

The average voter is flammable when heated to 10 million degrees though, which is something that could be pointed out to them that they might care about.

"Me Burn at 10,000,000,000 degrees?"

"yes"

"Missiles Stop Burn?"

"yes"

"Big Man no want missiles?"

"no"

"Me no like Big Man"

You might want to explain that to the average voters in the countries where we actually have missle defenses that were being discussed.


Most Poles didn’t support Bush’s plan anyway, and the radar installation in the Czech Republic was wildly unpopular. In fact, Poles favored Obama’s decision by a wide margin as good for Poland.

You probably can't find either country on a map, can you?

[RandomGuy]

The average voter is flammable when heated to 10 million degrees though, which is something that could be pointed out to them that they might care about.

"Me Burn at 10,000,000,000 degrees?"

"yes"

"Missiles Stop Burn?"

"yes"

"Big Man no want missiles?"

"no"

"Me no like Big Man"

"ok"

"me hungry"

"sorry, no food"

"Where food?"

"spent all money on missles"

"Me no like missles"


What a fun game.

[Sec24Row7]

"ok"

"me hungry"

"sorry, no food"

"Where food?"

"spent all money on missles"

"Me no like missles"


What a fun game.

Ahhh... so we are buying votes with handouts? What a novel practice. Wonder if "Big Man" will think of it.

[GSH]

Man, SA210 gives vaginas a bad name.


Since you're the biggest vagina on ST, I can see how that would bother you.


Like it or not, he was exactly right with that comment. He was saying, "If I give you what you want now, I might not get re-elected. After the election, I can do what I please." Of course, he knows that Congress, and the House Armed Services Committee, have already told him he can't. But he said that he would consider that part "non-binding".

You're not just a vagina, Chump. You're an unlikable vagina. That's quite an accomplishment.

[cheguevara]

:lmao black panthers on cnn calling to arrest the guy or else

the media and politicians rile them up and now they are like 'why are they involved' :lol

[RandomGuy]

Ahhh... so we are buying votes with handouts? What a novel practice. Wonder if "Big Man" will think of it.

BZZZT.

Wrong answer.


Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final


sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone.

It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.

It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.

It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.

We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat.

We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.

This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road. the world has been taking.

This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

[ChumpDumper]

Since you're the biggest vagina on ST, I can see how that would bother you.Nah, he and you are worse with your butthurt e-grudges. Sorry I permanently bruised you ego.



Like it or not, he was exactly right with that comment. He was saying, "If I give you what you want now, I might not get re-elected. After the election, I can do what I please." Of course, he knows that Congress, and the House Armed Services Committee, have already told him he can't. But he said that he would consider that part "non-binding".lol now you're just making shit up. Not a surprise.


You're not just a vagina, Chump. You're an unlikable vagina. That's quite an accomplishment.You like every vagina that ever existed? All the diseased, fat, loose, loose, old animal vaginas out there.

That's disgusting.

Well, I wouldn't expect you to think something like that out. for all the airs you try to put on, you're pretty stupid.

And into bestiality.

[JoeChalupa]

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y29/clintsquint/ObamalistensAM.jpg

[CosmicCowboy]

Since you're the biggest vagina on ST, I can see how that would bother you.


Like it or not, he was exactly right with that comment. He was saying, "If I give you what you want now, I might not get re-elected. After the election, I can do what I please." Of course, he knows that Congress, and the House Armed Services Committee, have already told him he can't. But he said that he would consider that part "non-binding".

You're not just a vagina, Chump. You're an unlikable vagina. That's quite an accomplishment.

:lmao

Thats a sig worthy quote if I ever saw one...

[Winehole23]

@junior high recess

[TeyshaBlue]

You would think that Russia would give Obama plenty of space on this issue. He made them pretty happy when we rid ourselves of the Eastern European Missile Defense shield back in 2009. I thought this was a cogent move by Obama. The shield was an answer to a question nobody asked and really was intended as a deterent to Iranian missile advances which is frankly, just not a concern to anyone.

[elbamba]

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y29/clintsquint/ObamalistensAM.jpg

I don't need KY anymore. I just need KU to beat Ohio State to win my work pool.

[ChumpDumper]

@junior high recessIt's ok, there is a growing legion of butthurt posters who can't do anything else when it comes to me.

[Vagina]

Since you're the biggest vagina on ST, I can see how that would bother you.


Like it or not, he was exactly right with that comment. He was saying, "If I give you what you want now, I might not get re-elected. After the election, I can do what I please." Of course, he knows that Congress, and the House Armed Services Committee, have already told him he can't. But he said that he would consider that part "non-binding".

You're not just a vagina, Chump. You're an unlikable vagina. That's quite an accomplishment.

I couldn't agree more.

[SA210]

Since you're the biggest vagina on ST, I can see how that would bother you.


Like it or not, he was exactly right with that comment. He was saying, "If I give you what you want now, I might not get re-elected. After the election, I can do what I please." Of course, he knows that Congress, and the House Armed Services Committee, have already told him he can't. But he said that he would consider that part "non-binding".

You're not just a vagina, Chump. You're an unlikable vagina. That's quite an accomplishment.

:lmao

[SA210]

iYGsadcBiFA

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao


It's ok, there is a growing legion of butthurt posters who can't do anything else when it comes to me.

[Winehole23]

David Corn puts Obama's putative gaffe in the context of the 2010 START treaty negotiations:


On Tuesday morning, Mitt Romney's foreign policy team sent an open letter to President Barack Obama—via the National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/294509/romney-advisers-send-open-letter-obama-demand-candor-foreign-policy-robert-costa)—that excoriated Obama for his inadvertently recorded comment to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in South Korea. Prior to a press conference, Obama had leaned toward Medvedev and said (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/27/us/politics/obama-caught-on-microphone-telling-medvedev-of-flexibility.html), "On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved, but it's important for him [Prime Minister Vladimir Putin] to give me space." He added, "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility." Not shockingly, Romney's brain trust pounced on the remarks, claiming that the statements "raise questions about whether a new period of even greater weakness and inconstancy would lie ahead if you are reelected."


But the Romneyites—and much of the reporters and commentators who have covered the so-called hot-mic gaffe—have missed the context: Obama's 2010 fight to ratify the New START treaty.


As it happens, my new book, Showdown: The Inside Story of How Obama Fought Back Against Boehner, Cantor, and the Tea Party (http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/03/showdown-corn-obama-white-house), details this dramatic tussle—a tale of Republican recalcitrance that nearly upended decades of bipartisan arms control policy.


Here's an abbreviated run-down. Early in his presidency, Obama began negotiations with the Russians on a follow-up accord to the START treaty first proposed by President Ronald Reagan. (START stands for Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty.) The New START would compel both the United States and Russia to downsize their stockpile of strategic warheads to 1,550 each within a few years. The cuts were moderate, but the treaty would revive a weapons inspections process that had ended with the expiration of the previous START agreement. Just as important, the treaty would help Obama improve relations with Moscow (as he sought Russia's help in pressing Iran regarding Tehran's nuclear program) and demonstrate that Obama was serious about his pledge to place the world on a path to a nuclear-free future.

Before the ink was dry on the accord, Senate Republicans—notably Jon Kyl and John McCain—started howling about the treaty. They claimed the treaty would hinder US missile defense efforts—even though arms control experts noted this was not the case. Kyl, the Senate Republicans' leading voice on nuclear arms matters (who, of course, doesn't really believe in arms control treaties), spent months questioning the accord and relentlessly engaged in fine-print back-and-forth with the administration. He also used his leverage to squeeze billions of dollars in extra funding from the White House for maintaining the existing nuclear weapon stockpile. But toward the end of 2010—during the post-midterms lame-duck session—Kyl declared there was no time to consider ratification before the congressional session finished. This was an effort to sabotage the agreement.



But Obama pushed on, as Vice President Joe Biden courted moderate Republicans to assemble the two-thirds majority needed for ratification. In those final weeks, leading Senate Republicans assailed the White House push for ratification. They claimed the treaty was being bum-rushed through the Senate, even though it had been afforded more hearings and debate time than previous START treaties. Kyl went so far as to accuse Obama of "disrespecting one of the two holiest days for Christians" by debating the treaty so close to Christmas. (Would Jesus object?) Senator Jim DeMint declaimed the situation as "sacrilegious." And McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham told Biden they would only consider supporting the treaty if Obama dropped his attempt to repeal the Don't Ask/Don't Tell policy at the Pentagon prohibiting out-in-the-open gays and lesbians from serving in the military. In the final days of the ratification debate, Obama, Biden, and Senator John Kerry, who was leading the ratification drive, had to outmaneuver McCain to prevent a defeat. They did so in a rather clever fashion. (For those details, you'll to have to read Chapter Four.)


The president eventually won ratification on a 71-to-26 vote. The treaty was a modest one, yet, as the New York Times noted at the time, "No Russian-American arms treaty submitted for a Senate vote ever squeaked through by a smaller margin."


The point is this: The Senate Republicans turned the bipartisan-backed New START treaty into a major political clash in a way that had never been done before. Given that this pack is even stronger in the Senate these days, it is no wonder that Obama would tell Medvedev that any arms control initiatives would be quite difficult to manage in the months prior to the 2012 elections. With New START, Republicans demonstrated they were willing—even eager—to politicize such issues. Kyl threatened torpedoing the treaty if the White House didn't spend billions of dollars more on the nuclear stockpile. (Though he got his money, he went ahead with this threat.) McCain and Graham denounced ratification in hyperbolic terms (while signaling their votes for a treaty governing world-destroying weapons could be procured if Obama dumped his Don't Ask/Don't Tell repeal).


Obama skillfully navigated the Republican intransigence with New START. But the episode showed how hard it is for the White House to deal with the Senate GOPers on this critical front. And with Romney and other Republicans decrying Obama as a weak-kneed appeaser and apologizer—who kowtows to Russia—Obama is right to conclude that this is not a good moment to pursue the hard work of US-Russia arms control. There is indeed little political space available for this important endeavor, and the Republicans outraged about Obama's hot-mic remark are responsible for that.
http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/03/obama-medvedev-hot-mic-russia

[Winehole23]

Red baiting Obama was a dismal failure in 2008, but feel free to keep doing it if you think it helps.

[Winehole23]

swing and a miss. don't watch much TV, not a cable subscriber.

[Winehole23]

though I will admit I voted for Ron Paul in 2008, just like my media masters told me to

[ChumpDumper]

Wow, that was a lot of fail crammed into three posts, TC.

[ChumpDumper]

you do realize even if my fail rate was 50% of my posts and yours was only a 5% fail rate, you'd still fail a lot more times than me right? at least you didnt say it in question form you pretentious douchebagBut you said yours in question form you pretentious douchebag.

[Winehole23]

thanks for letting me know that tv is the only form of media known to man, smart guy. i mean you definitely don't listen to the radio or read anything either (such as maybe the articles posted on this very forum) crofldon't much listen to radio either, but I do read some. guilty as charged there.

[Sec24Row7]

BZZZT.

Wrong answer.

And?

I'm sure that was painted on every Bomb he dropped on a Korean's head...

What does that have to do with anything?

[DisAsTerBot]

at least you didnt say it in question form you pretentious douchebag

i lol'd

[DisAsTerBot]

@junior high recess

yeah, chump's original vagina joke was so high brow

[Winehole23]

...that the rest of you took the ball and ran with it. emulation is the sincerest form of flattery.

[DisAsTerBot]

...that the rest of you took the ball and ran with it. emulation is the sincerest form of flattery.

lol "the rest of you"

i wouldnt emulate anyone on this board.

but good job calling someone out for making the same joke as chump ( whom you didnt call out )

[Winehole23]

did I exclude ChumpDumper? Anyone who calls other people vaginas online qualifies for junior high recess cred.

[DisAsTerBot]

did I exclude ChumpDumper? Anyone who calls other people vaginas online qualifies for junior high recess cred.

:toast

[cheguevara]

don't really see the problem with what Obama said. He was talking to a russian puppet about more time whatever his pretext might be. who gives a shit

[Spurtacular]

On chump's advice to search for "abdicate"


SEOUL, South Korea — At the tail end of his 90 minute meeting with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev Monday, President Obama said that he would have “more flexibility” to deal with controversial issues such as missile defense, but incoming Russian President Vladimir Putin needs to give him “space.”
The exchange was picked up by microphones as reporters were let into the room for remarks by the two leaders.
The exchange:
President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.
President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…
President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.
President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.


A reasonable interpretation of these comments could be:

"Once I get re-elected I can go ahead and do what the people wouldn't want me to do. If I did this now I couldn't get re-elected."


Really, how many votes do you think hinge on this?

I'm not sure many want a renewed nuclear arms race with Russia.


Probably not many votes in New York or California. But probably plenty of votes in Ohio and Florida.

I'm not sure many want a president who refuses to take a stand on the issue simply because it would not be in his political interest.

Perhaps he is out Romneying Mitt.


Ohio isn't afraid of being nuked by Russia?

You do not want a sitting president, when faced with a foreign national security issue, to address said issue, but instead, wait until there is less political consequence. What a stupid thing to think.

Why not just abdicate the presidency for the next 8 months? Well, I guess that is technically what is happening. The president has effectively become the Queen of England for the interim.


Even worse, he is just the campaigner in chief. Being President requires making tough decisions about what is in US best interest. He can't let that get in the way of being re-elected.


Yes, they are building fallout shelters and doing duck and cover drills at schools.

Every president running for reelection does this.

Every one.

It's very stupid to think otherwise.


Should it be limited to any president?


It's a matter of Ohio nuclear defense!


It's electoral politics.

If one wants an autocrat, one can say so.


From what I heard, Obama's plan was pretty ambitious as announced. If he were completely cowed by the election, I doubt anything like tactical nukes would have been brought up at all.

:lmao Yesterday's chump

[Pavlov]

On chump's advice to search for "abdicate"























:lmao Yesterday's chump:lmao it's not even in my quote you colossal derp.

:rollin

[Spurtacular]

:lmao it's not even in my quote you colossal derp.

:rollin

The funny part isn't a word

:lmao Chump's desperation

[Spurtacular]

Chump ran and hid for cover. :lmao

[Spurtacular]

And?

And that was 2012 not 2016.

#AlwaysWithHer

:rollin

[Pavlov]

Derp completely unable to explain himself.

[ducks]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5997025/amp/Obama-advisor-William-Mendoza-seen-taking-picture-womans-skirt-DC-Metro.html?__twitter_impression=true

Bad aide!

[Spurtacular]

Derp completely unable to explain himself.

'Chump For Retards.' Seems a bit redundant. :lol

[Pavlov]

'Chump For Retards.' Seems a bit redundant. :lollol derp still struggling.