does it take a doctorate in calculus with another doctorate in political science to predict that a guy with zero political experience and a simplistic platform aimed at appealing to lower IQ voters (especially on limited governance) would be a weaker handed potus than a career strongarmed bureaucrat who never saw a "problem" she couldnt bomb or write a law againt?

No.
That's not a cogent argument though. Obama was also a strong leader who liked to micromanage his administration and who also belonged to the party of career bureaucrats, plus his platform and rhetoric aimed at appealing to higher IQ voters. Yet he was a VERY weak president on Russia.

Furthermore, skinned's argument isnt limited to Trump's foreign policy. Yes, it was kinda easy to predict that he would pursue an indecisive and muddled foreign policy, but the article goes beyond that. It insinuates that the Russians predicted Trump to increase division and gridlock in America, therefore weakening the country all-around, not just on foreign policy.

Btw, generally speaking, I dont think that the US would be significantly less divided on just about everything right now under a president Clinton.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Apr 22 2020 10:37am

It would be an easy guess that was proven right.




He ran on a platform of white identity politics separate from the rest of Republican party.

This is obviously divisive.

This post was edited by Skinned on Apr 22 2020 10:38am

It's incredible the level of hate minorities get that don't behave the way they're supposed to from the left. I'm trying to think if there is anything that comes closes to this on the right?

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Apr 22 2020 10:48am

you're wrong on multiple accounts.

1. obama was billed as a political outsider of sorts, with a short time in senate, as compared to HRC or even McCain who were career bureaucrats.

2. "the party of career bureaucrats", im not even sure what that means, but in any context it's wrong. both sides have career stooges at the top of the heap.

3. Trump specifically ran on anti-interventionism. decreed middle eastern engagements, criticized anyone who said they'd fight Putin in Syria, said openly we should be more friendly with them, etc.

4. the idea that u couldnt predict Trump would be decisive is beyond silly. he couldnt even get much above 35% in his own party for most of the primary. he had Paul Ryan and others criticizing his campaign up to and even beyond voting day. he was a reality tv star, WWE mainstay, etc. Divisiveness was built into his campaign.



in general your assertion that only hindsight can be used to predict Trump would be better for Russia is silly, domestic, foreign, even just Syria or any other context in the micro lens. its frankly baffling. Goomshill has been saying for years that ofc Russia preferred trump, as has anyone else conservative leaning. that kind of the whole thing, HRC was THAT bad.




he's a democrat from Hotlanta, who endorsed Trump. safe to say the lion's share of criticism is coming from fellow brothas.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Apr 22 2020 10:55am

more racist pale pasty privileged lefties attack a man of color. common thread in this topic last few pages

The overwhelming majority of (federal) career bureaucrats lean Democratic. Just look at the vote results in DC and Northern Virginia, where they live.




That's not my assertion. My assertion is that there was uncertainty involved with how a Trump presidency would turn out in terms of foreign policy, leadership, strengthening/weakening the country. Yes, some scenarios were far more likely than others (e.g. division, indecisiveness vs unity and a president listening to competent advisors) but still fundamental uncertainty. By contrast, there was no uncertainty about Hillary, it was without a doubt that she would turn out to be a Russia hawk and run an efficient administration.

So, from Putin's point of view, you had:

- Hillary = definitely bad
- Trump = probably good, a bit of a wildcard

You dont really need the second item to come to the conclusion that it was in Russia's interest to support Hillary's opponent.


This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Apr 22 2020 11:21am

do you have a source for career bureaucrats leaning left? because just saying "look at DC" seems like weak evidence. if we were to define a career politician we'd have to look at long standing governors, congressmen, and senators. and if we did im confident it would be nearly a 50-50 split. for ever Virginia democrat there's an alabama GOP good ol boy. Mitch McConnel, Jeff Sessions, Sherrif Arpaijo, etc. Every different state or district tends to re-elect their chosen party over and over, regardless of results.

as to your second point, i agree russia could come to the conclusion not to want HRC. but trump was signalling anti interventionism so hard that i disagree with the overall assessment. ending foreign wars was one of the pillars of his campaign.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Apr 22 2020 11:25am

The senators/house of reps and their staffers are a tiny portion of what makes up career politicians. For everyone of those there's a legion of federal bureaucrats in places like the state department, dept of treasury, interior and so on. DC is a fair metric if we are talking about federal.

I personally think many of the DOD/military type departments & bureaucracies lean to the right while everyone else leans to the left.

i think just from a conversation flow we were talking about Obama, HRC, and Trump. aka people running for office and how their life of service affected the public's opinion of them. and we see this constantly in debates, people bring up 30 years of voting history against career politicians, whereas new blood have the luxury of pretending like they didnt support the Iraq war, war on drugs, war on crime, etc.

i'd tend to agree in the federal sphere it's a left leaning trend, and in the military, dod, or even department of justice, its a right leaning trend. i just find moving to a conversation just about federal sphere to be a goalpost move away from the context we were talking in. true nonetheless tho.