The Curiosity of Obama and RussiasteemCreated with Sketch.

in #politics6 years ago

With the announcement of the findings of the Mueller investigation, the whole perspective we have on the issue of Russia and the 2016 election appears to have changed. A dozen or so Russians, who will never be extradited from Russia to be brought to trial here, were charged with whatever the obscure laws governing foreign interference in elections cover.

Of course, there is some kind of report with the charge filing, and that provides some indication as to what the Mueller team believes they found that Russians did. And those charges have some pretty interesting content in them that makes us think a bit.

The Russians have been tampering with our election process for decades; we always knew that. This effort and investigation actually forced our government for once to dig hard into what the Russians were doing, as opposed to telling them to "cut it out" (B. Obama, 2016) got some concrete material on when, as well as what, they were doing.

So let's note one prominent point. The evidence that the Special Counsel's team uncovered, about their actions in the 2016 election, indicate a continuous effort going back to at least 2014. Since Donald Trump didn't come down that Trump Tower escalator to declare for the presidency until June 2015, it does sort of blow up the notion that there was any particular collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign.

The report, of course, indicates very strongly that the Russian actions were absolutely not on behalf of a single party or candidate. They were balanced, intended to produce more contention between the parties and between candidates, more extreme hostility and, in general, try to make democracy as practiced in America look unattractive. That's what they did, and that's why they did it.

So let us look at a few points in time.

In 2012, Barack Obama, then president and running for reelection, whispered over an open mic to Dmitry Medvedev to "Tell Vladimir [Putin]" that he would have more flexibility after the reelection campaign, and that Putin should give him "space."

During that same 2012 campaign, we were in one of the presidential debates with Mitt Romney. Noting that Romney had called Russia our greatest geopolitical foe, Obama used the cutesy line, written for him to stuff in when the time was right, "The 1980s called and they want their foreign policy back." In other words, on a huge stage, Obama, then the actual president, soft-pedaled any notion that Russia was a serious geopolitical adversary.

Then in 2014, the Russians who, in Obama's view, were not our big adversary, started (or updated) a campaign to sow discord in America by exacerbating the rhetoric and the contention on both sides, which they continued even after the election. One can imagine that if the Russians somehow did not start, or fund Antifa, that they are at least quite supportive of an anarchic organization that fits their mission just fine, thanks.

So Obama says the Russians are not a big deal. He whispers to them that he'll be more flexible after the election in 2012. The Russians then foment all kinds of fake disguised-as-American garbage to stir up political animosity on both sides. Obama knew that was going on, because Loretta Lynch's Department of "Justice" knew about it.

But nothing got done to stop it, and now somehow the Democrats are all uptight because they want President Trump to implement sanctions and probably invade Russia. So why does Barack Obama have to be protected? He obviously knew at least some of what was going on, but did not bring it to the attention of the American people, save telling Putin to "cut it out." He even made a point late in the 2016 campaign that Donald Trump should stop complaining about a rigged election!

Is that not something that we should be asking about Obama before, you know, we start naming schools and mountains after him? Obama is an extreme leftist, and leftists are not big fans of the will of the people, except the ones who keep voting for them to expand government. Is it not possible that Obama was doing the "wink, wink" thing while the Russians were setting up shop over here specifically for the purpose of wreaking havoc on the normal electoral process?

Let's face it, problems -- any problems -- are good for the Obamas of the world, because they create an appearance of a need for more government, ore oversight, more clamping down on all but the privileged class. Motivation is all over this, especially if Obama's fingerprints could have been wiped clean, which would have happened had Hillary Clinton been elected.

Let's hold Barack Obama suitably accountable for the destabilization of the USA and our election system, and working with foreign entities to allow them to do so.

It's called "collusion", friends.

Copyright 2018 by Robert Sutton

Sort:  

I find this whole Russian influence pathetic and many people are buying into it. Our system is in the state it is because of the duopoly and the 100 yrs of rhetoric that says we have the best system in world. Why does our system make it so hard for 3rd parties to be on the ballot? Why is the debate commission a bipartisan entity, should it not be an independent organization? Why does the media refuse to give 3rd parties coverage when they know the electorate wants to know about alternatives? We first need to look in the mirror to know acknowledge there needs to be changes in our system. "Collusion" is a good way to describe it buts it the collusion of the Duopoly/Media that needs to be held accountable.

Bomb, it is not actually our system that makes it hard for third parties to be on the ballot. It is the nature of people that there is truly not a "moderate middle" that the media keep trying to pretend exists. I wrote about that phenomenon and misconception in a piece you will probably enjoy here -- http://uberthoughtsusa.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-myth-of-moderate.html.

The point is that people tend to assort their views into two poles regardless of topic -- two, not three. That leaves no consolidation of a certain set of collective views other than those two, that could be large enough to form a party capable of winning election and sustaining a government.

I did enjoy the article. I feel it brings up the question of how do we depolarize? What happened to compromise? I still maintain our system can be better and with some changes and could become less polarizing.

When there are only two voices at the table the grey solution that could work never gets heard. Would more voices at the table make it easier or harder to compromise? Its been taught for so long that a 3rd party vote is a wasted vote that media/voters believe it to be fact.

A third party doesn't need to win the election and sustain a government. They just need to be there to offer the solutions that may appease the two parties that have put us $20 trillion in debt.

We are to diverse to only have two options as there are way to many topics that no party will ever be able to satisfy. I feel we would be better off if more options were presented. One way that would happen is the two big party's break up and reorganize.

I suppose I regard it that the political assortment I wrote about is always going to happen; that the problem is the process that overvalues rhetoric and undervalues accomplishment and compromise. But I also would offer that a compromised solution may not be right either -- the solution to a problem is the solution that works, not one that pains both sides sufficiently. Your points are very well made -- and you'll note if you have gone back and read many of the political pieces I've done that I am willing to look at both sides -- but I value solutions that work above those that are arrived at through consensus. That's why I'm a conservative, because liberalism simply doesn't work. I hope you enjoy my piece today, where I think I did some of that kind of thinking on gun control but it leans your way (compromise).

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.39
TRX 0.12
JST 0.040
BTC 70118.22
ETH 3546.28
USDT 1.00
SBD 4.89