The President Is Doing An Extraordinary Job...

[The Glory Land]

Do we have a strong president or a weak president to deal with the Russians? 

 

[John81]

Neither. We have a president moved more by ego and poor advice than strength or weakness.

 

Matters in Crimea are not a key national interest to America. A wise president, whether weak or strong, would stay out of it. This is what presidents such as Eisenhower, Reagan, and Bush all did when confronted with similar, or even larger incidents involving the Soviet Union or Russia.

[HappyChristian]

Bwahahahahaha...(laughing at the thread title)

[John81]

Yes LuAnne, it is funny to consider that he is indeed doing an extraordinary job. There is certainly very little that is ordinary about his job performance when compared to his predecessors. Maybe he eats too many cocoa puffs!

[ThePilgrim]

We have a narcissist in chief as president.  He has insipid fools and adolescents for advisers.  He was chosen to be president by TPTB.  All in all the U.S is one heck of a hole and trying to dig further downward to get herself out. 

 

And yes I am optimistic about the future, because God is in control.

 

God bless,

Larry

[ThePilgrim]

As regards his foreign policy he might consider what a much smarter president, George Washington had to say about foreign entanglements.

And I dug this little tidbit out of my quotes file:

"Just a minor comment. The relations between Poles and Russians (or Ukranians) or any other peoples that border each other) are what they are because of their history. That is the primary reason to stay out of most disputes and avoid the "foreign entanglements" to which Washington referred. Russian history is made up mostly of incursions by bordering nations, nomads, etc. It isn't paranoia when they are out to get you, so the Russian proclivity for securing border areas is pretty much expected. Of course this feeds the paranoia of the bordering areas. As a result, whenever one is viewed as weak, the other looks at it as an opportunity to weaken them further or crush them. You can see examples of both in the last century: Poland following their revolt from the Russian empire pushed to grab as much territory as they could during the Russian Revolution. In turn, the Soviets occupied Poland after WWII. These weren't the first occurrences, from all appearances they won't be the last. A self-sustaining relationship of paranoia and fear you could say. I have no interest in picking a side or passing judgement, it is just the way I see it."

 

It is to bad the people around the president never seem to have studied history of they would butt out of Europe.

 

God bless,

Larry

[282Mikado]

This cartoon pretty much sums it up:

 

http://www.gocomics.com/michaelramirez/2014/03/24

 

This one speaks volumes too:

 

http://www.investors.com/editorial-cartoons/michael-ramirez/694215-obama-for-president

[swathdiver]

American Communists will always side with the motherland (Russia) even if on the outside they oppose or even fight them in a war.  They want you to watch the one hand that puts on the show while the other reveals their true intentions, goals, and loyalties.

 

Roosevelt and Truman are classic examples of such treachery and deceit.   

[John81]

Communism was birthed in Germany and President Lincoln imported tens of thousands of communists to America.

 

Russia is no longer communist. Putin is in favor of a nationalist Russia more based upon pre-communist workings.

 

Meanwhile, China and Cuba are both still communist. Cuba, despite American sanctions virtually my whole life, still hangs on. China, by tweaking their system to take advantage of industrialization and the appetite of Americans, has grown into a major power that is currently poised to be the dominate world power before the end of this century.

 

FDR and Truman had their faults, but they were not communists.

[Ukulelemike]

Neither. We have a president moved more by ego and poor advice than strength or weakness.

 

Matters in Crimea are not a key national interest to America. A wise president, whether weak or strong, would stay out of it. This is what presidents such as Eisenhower, Reagan, and Bush all did when confronted with similar, or even larger incidents involving the Soviet Union or Russia.

Generally I would agree, except we signed a treaty, along with Russia and the UK, when the country was disarmed, to not only NOT do them harm, but to come to their aide if they were invaded or threatened. Now, one of the treaty countries has shown themselves unreliable and untrustworthy, and the question is, does America hold up its end of the agreement and protect them, or not? Like a man, a country is only as good as its word-we made a promise specifically to them; do we ignore our promise? Or is the word of America no good these days?

 

I am no war monger: I think we've spent enough time and money in things that we really have little interest in, and we don't need to be the world's police, but again, the issue comes up, we promised to protect them when we saw them disarmed-do we allow them to be abused or do we stand, and demand the UK join us, and protect them, as promised?

[The Glory Land]

Do we have a strong president or a weak president to deal with the Russians?

OBama, did much better yesterday.

[HappyChristian]

He did?  Okay, if you say so.

[swathdiver]

Communism was birthed in Germany and President Lincoln imported tens of thousands of communists to America.

 

Russia is no longer communist. Putin is in favor of a nationalist Russia more based upon pre-communist workings.

 

Meanwhile, China and Cuba are both still communist. Cuba, despite American sanctions virtually my whole life, still hangs on. China, by tweaking their system to take advantage of industrialization and the appetite of Americans, has grown into a major power that is currently poised to be the dominate world power before the end of this century.

 

FDR and Truman had their faults, but they were not communists.

 

Russia not Germany is the motherland for Communists.  Each Communist ruler doesn't follow a set playbook, he rules as he sees fit, often doing things that don't fit in a neat definition.

 

FDR and TRUMAN were not card carrying members but certainly did more for spreading communism across the glOBe than the communists themselves.  This is how they are used and they are called Fellow Travelers.  Neither were anti-communist.  Their staffs were loaded with Soviet Spies.  Imagine Karl Rove and Tony Snow under Bush being spies for Osama Bin Laden.  That's how it was and worse under FDR and Truman.   

[ThePilgrim]

Russia not Germany is the motherland for Communists.  Each Communist ruler doesn't follow a set playbook, he rules as he sees fit, often doing things that don't fit in a neat definition.

 

FDR and TRUMAN were not card carrying members but certainly did more for spreading communism across the glOBe than the communists themselves.  This is how they are used and they are called Fellow Travelers.  Neither were anti-communist.  Their staffs were loaded with Soviet Spies.  Imagine Karl Rove and Tony Snow under Bush being spies for Osama Bin Laden.  That's how it was and worse under FDR and Truman.   

Every presidents administration since Truman have also had there share of the pink or reddish sorts in them.  The state departments have been the worse.  As far as where the communist philosophy came from, Germany was where it was dreamed up and Russia was where they first attempted to implement.

 

God bless,

Larry

[swathdiver]

The State Department went Red in the 1930s and NEVER recovered.  Republican Presidents were not even able to ferret them all out, nor their devilish plans and philosophy.  Shortly after leaving office, Condi Rice was asked who she looked up, to model herself after while head of the State Department and you know who she identified with?  Dean Acheson, another one of Stalin's stooges!  

 

Save for the OBama Administration, none were as treasonous as FDR's or Truman's.