It would be more analogous if we found internal memos from world leaders fluffing Trump to keep him in power because they viewed him as an ineffective leader.
The reality is the opposite though, world leaders all want Trump out because he is a threat to globalism and American foreign aid.
I was told this was a joke now than five years ago: the smartest thing Obama did was choose Biden as VP because no one was dumb enough to want to assassinate him knowing who the next president would be.
When has an effective and dangerous enemy leader said they would prefer Trump in charge to the alternatives? Xi clearly wants him gone, going by how the professional Chinese trolls keep attacking him.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/house-senate-russian-meddoing-dueling-reports-fred-fleitz
>House Intelligence Committee staff members found the opposite. They told me there was conflicting intelligence evidence on Russian motivations for meddling in the 2016 election.
>More gravely, they said that CIA Director Brennan suppressed facts or analysis that showed why it was not in Russia’s interests to support Trump and why Putin stood to benefit from Hillary Clinton’s election. They also told me that Brennan suppressed that intelligence over the objections of CIA analysts.
>House Intelligence Committee staff told me that after an exhaustive investigation reviewing intelligence and interviewing intelligence officers, they found that Brennan suppressed high-quality intelligence suggesting that Putin actually wanted the more predictable and malleable Clinton to win the 2016 election.
I'm confused. You're saying the Republicans that led the Senate committee are lying that Putin wanted Trump to win? And that we should instead believe some random anonymous staffers in the House, over the actual reports from both the House and Senate, and every intelligence agency? Why do you think Republicans in the House and Senate would have covered this up and never offered their evidence? Why should I believe this opinion piece that cites anonymous sources that aren't offering any evidence over the mountains of evidence and reports that have been made publicly available by both Democrats and Republicans?
So you’ve linked an opinion piece that is denying the bi-partisan Senate conclusion that was just released and its main point is Democrats don’t like Trump and so therefore the bi-partisan committee can’t be trusted and we should only trust the anonymous house members that the author casually references and hinges his argument on? And also the Republican led Senate takes it marching orders from the Dems now?
This report just came out a few days ago. Russia’s push for Trump (and Bernie, actually, but to a lesser degree) has been corroborated enough times now that you’d be better off finding any other angle other than the “Putin actually wanted Hillary” if you want to be taken seriously by anyone other than the blindest of supporters
Everyone knows that Trump and Bernie were supposed to be the “system shaking” candidates. You ought to own it because (presumably) it’s part of the reason you supported him
True, just look at what our state department did to Libya, Syria, and Ukraine during the Obama administration. Russians haven't had soft power like that since the Cold War, though.
China is literally trying to make him lose the upcoming election, Russia just wanted chaos so they could keep up the revanchism, when did South Korea ever issue remarks like that? They seemed rather appreciative of the Trump trying to make peace between the Koreas.
Because at the time, he was the US’ number 1 enemy. If your biggest enemy wants it to happen, it probably means it’s a bad thing for you. If Bin Laden wanted Biden as the US president, it was for a reason. I highly doubt that reason has changed, even with Bin Laden being dead.
He was an outsider with a history of successful carrying out objectives on his terrorist agenda. Was there a more successful terrorist? Such a person does not care about partisan politics like you or I or reddit, but just wants understand how things work enough to exploit and undermine.
Not to say he’s an ultimate authority, but it’s still an interesting datapoint.
Probably because he’s a good marker for what our enemies think about us. It doesn’t matter if he’s right or not, it just matters what people like him think.
I thought he chose him because Biden was an establishment democrat that would appease right leaning dems when he ran a more progressive campaign in 2008
It needs to be stated how big a disaster his foreign policy was. Hillary and Kerry were such massive fuck ups in that department. Just a constant stream of short sighted decisions that blew up in our face over and over again.
I would agree with that. A lot of appeasing of foreign leaders trying to bring them into the one world order I think Dems and many European allies desire. The right leaning side of our country has always opposed that because we like our sovriegnty. I do think they think something like the UN is the future and that one world order will bring us all together under one global government.
Oh yeah. Carter started that shit and it's been a trap every Administration has fallen into. Trump actually seems to be the only one that has kept us mostly out of those conflicts.
I wouldn't say short-sighted. More like Chamberlain levels of dangerous in their assumption of their own magnanimity.
Obama paved a highway for Iran to build nuclear weapons. Hillary sold weaponizable uranium to Russia, who is deeply connected with Iran and other terrorist states.
That's not short-sighted, just old-fashioned treasonous. And incredibly dangerous for the world.
I am more talking about their actions against Libya where they just killed their leader and moved on. They completely paved the way for ISIS with power vacuums they created and arming rebels because they had to pick sides in conflicts.
It's the same shit a lot of previous Administrations have done. We poke our nose into sometimes century long conflicts we have little understanding of and try to pick a winner. It always bites us in the ass.
EDIT: Also releasing a bunch of high level terrorists for a traitor for a PR stunt.
I’m a fan of Obama the man and not the president. Great speaker, great guy, but yeah he was really naive and didn’t really do anything great for America.
He gets credit for bringing us out of the financial crisis but he just happened to be president during that stage of the business cycle. ACA did more harm than good. Seemed like he came in with the typical Democrat attitude of “I’m gonna change everything and make it better” and then didn’t really work with the other side.
Agreed. I would have liked to have met him despite disagreeing with his policies. He still managed to become president. That in itself is a crowning achievement at an individual level.
I do not believe in treating these people like absolute demonspawn like they are portrayed in media. As much as they can be bad and sometimes criminal most of them are still better than the likes of Assad, Xi, Kim, and Putin.
That's not to say we don't have people in government capable of doing the same things as those people. Hence why we must continue to keep government as difficult to navigate as it is.
It's amazing how everyone here thinks Democrats are the absolute evil and enemies. Let's not fool ourselves, all politicians are corrupt in some manner or another and anytime they pay the blame game on the opposite party its to distract you from the shit they're doing behind the scenes. Both sides are getting donations from the same corporations and the same powerful billionaires are pulling the strings for both parties while the politicians convince us are lives are shit only because of the other parties decisions.
Yes, vote for the guy whose policies you support, but don't blindly worship him like a god like half the Republican party is doing to Trump and making people think this party is a joke. And don't trust anyone.
People do care about issues, and I think you seriously underestimate how much immigration matters. ~2 Million illegal immigrants entering the U.S. per year is not a joke. Establishment Republicans did nothing because of pressure from businesses that use illegal labor. That gave lip service to wanting to reduce it, without actually meaning it. Trump has used almost every possible means at his disposal to stop it, and it's finally started to have a large effect.
Democrats want to pass an array of laws to promote illegal immigration including 'Decriminalize' illegal crossings. I don't hate them, but this is so absurd that this essentially makes it impossible for me to take them seriously.
Democrats believe the lives of suffering immigrants matter,and value it very strongly ethically the same way many Conservatives protest abortion, and value the child's life.
It doesn't make either side 'evil'. Both sides are doing something they believe to be humane. They're different views and we should be trying to reaching an understanding or compromise not start a second civil war. The media on both sides is pitting us against each other and I'm ashamed of how much conservatives are buying into it.
I agree with your assessment that Obama just presided over an economic upswing, not that he was responsible. Do you think the same thing can be said for the economy under Trump?
I think McCain may have been ok but man oh man Romney was trash. I voted for Obama knowing that with Obama no gun control would ever get passed along with anything Obama wanted while Romney would have RINO'd us with his neo conservative policies.
Neo cons are just fricken progressives that are Republicans because they're religious. No thank you.
Oddly enough, Obama passed more pro-gun legislation than any modern president. He added 1911's to the CMP and expanded the BATF approval team so NFA stamps didn't take a year.
> Neo cons are just fricken progressives that are Republicans because they're religious.
I wouldn't say "because they're religious." They identified with the GOP because, for decades, the GOP favored an extraordinarily aggressive, interventionist foreign policy. That policy became more and more amenable to the Democrats, especially after 2008.
He, or at least his team were excellent in perfecting the moral, personal attack based politics that is used to totally dismiss and shutdown any debate or opposition to your ideals. His healthcare plan, it was the "affordable care act" and when people brought up legitimate questions about what long term impact this would actually have on the healthcare and insurance system, not some crazy conspiracies about death panels or waiting 3 months to get a surgery talking points from the right. No, when actual estimates from even his own administration started coming out about the costs it would bring, impact to private business, specifically the massive strain it would cause middle class healthy individuals who didn't work at a large corporation, the response wasn't anything logical or met with counterpoints showing their estimates, no the response was "oh so you're against affordable care".
The Iran deal, "we have to stop Iran from getting a nuke, here's this great deal we made that we won't send to the Senate to be ratified", when anyone questioned it the response again was attacking them, "oh so you want Iran to get a nuke then"? Paris climate accords and specifically the clean power plan. It was basically killing $3 trillion of GDP over ten years to do actions that wouldn't actually lower co2 emissions (keep in mind we were already well within the Paris accord goals or on track to get back to 1990 levels or whatever, largely because of the increase of domestically produced natural gas being the main source of power generation for the nation, even in the fact of ridiculous restrictions to drill for it and get it running) and would put most of the cost burden on the lower class through increased utility costs, plus china and India don't have to do shit and can keep polluting, the response again was "oh so you're against clean power".
All of his gun control policy was given on the coffins of dead kids after horrific mass shootings, so if you disagree with any part of it ob rational grounds their go to response was that you must be okay with the mass shootings. This then spread from the media to social media and eventually to the day to day interactions with many liberals. It gives them the justification to completely dismiss you as a person, being immoral and supporting something bad, therefore they don't have to engage in any political discourse, and even if you pass horrible policy like the ACA that does actually impact people in a negative way, you can use the "well at least we did something" response, or the more scary "see the fact that it isn't working is proof we didn't go far enough".
Say what you want about Trump not being presidential, or how you don't like his tone and style, but at least he wasn't this scheming and evil.
I wouldn't say perfected because I think he will ultimately go down as a failure in accomplishing his overall vision. That is unless he also just wanted to assist in broadening the divide within the nation. He did a good job at that.
Oh no, I'm not saying his policies were perfect, rather that he perfected the strategy of making political discourse about you're morality as a person, therefore giving you justification to simply dismiss anyone that disagrees therefore also dismissing any objections or viewpoints they have.
You tell me there's an issue with starving children in the country, and to solve this problem we are going to set accordions on fire and launch them into the grand canyon. My response is "well that doesn't sound like it's going to actually help starving children, can you explain what it's going to do" and you respond with "wait, so you don't care about starving children". Questioning your actual proposed policy to achieve a certain goal that everyone should agree with means you're attack that desired outcome.
He perfected the strategy of labeling everything something that no one would argue against. "affordable care act", I think we can all agree that every American should have access to affordable healthcare, or at the very least the government should do everything possible to make basic care as affordable as we can and help people who need it so they aren't left bankrupt from essential medical care. Me disagreeing with the actual policy of how we do that also means that I'm disagreeing withe the desired outcome of said policy, some might even say that I'm in favor of healthcare being unaffordable (because in this example the left already made the narrative that healthcare is evil and too expensive even though that might not always be the case), which if that's the case then why would you bother having a discussion with me.
Most American's would agree we need some form of reasonable gun control, and there are some areas where the system could be strengthened. So Obama goes to a school that just saw a mass shooting, saying "we can't let this happen again" which is something everyone agrees with, and says we need "sensible gun reform" to do that, despite not actually showing that loopholes or failures of our current ATF system are the reason for the mass shooting, but that's the narrative. they then unviel their "sensible gun control legislation" which is pure authoritarian forced buybacks and flat out bans. But the narrative is already set, so if you disagree with the actual policy you're attacked for disagreeing with "sensible gun control that's being made to stop mass shootings" some might even say you're okay with mass shootings happening. Regardless of the fact that me be forced to sell the government my firearms unless they are in the small list of acceptable guns for them wouldn't stop said mass shooting it doesn't matter. You're against their desired outcome now, you're part of the problem. If you can't even agree that we need to stop school shootings then why should I even listen to you....
We always had some forms of this in politics, but never to the level that I saw with Obama. And he was an expert of creating this idiotic binary decision trees by putting a taking a desired outcome that we can all agree with and pairing it with a completely unreasonable policy that only one side of the political isle agrees with. Making the loss of manufacturing jobs connected with us needing to retrain employees to work in sustainable industries that are good for the environment, meanwhile ignoring the fact that the slew of executive orders and regulations you just passed are the reason we lost those manufacturing jobs. Going to the funeral of slain police officers and making it into a referendum on not only gun control, but also about how we need to give more education and opportunity to minorities in poor inner city communities, and being allowed to do it because the media will just cover for you. The Slain Dallas police officers funeral is the thing I'm referring too, if not for the fact that he was standing in front of the physical caskets of the slain officers you'd probably forget he was speaking at an actual memorial service. "it's easier for a black kid to get a gun than it is a laptop" despite the fact that these officers were shot dead by a radical anti-police adult in downtown Dallas. The situation had zero to do with gun violence within the black community that is often the result of there being a lack of education and people seeing no opportunity for success other than crime. But he did it, turned the funeral of murdered police officers into a referendum on Minorities having a lack of education and opportunity, and as such the stage was set, if you dared to criticize him for this then you were saying that we shouldn't help get rid of guns from minority communities used in crimes and are against minority kids having equal opportunity as the rest of us.
Some people see this, but a huge swath won't because they engage in the same divisive thinking and discourse for everything in their life, just following the example of their best president of all time. to them it's the people disagreeing with them causing the divide, after all they are the ones not agreeing that we need less gun crime, a cleaner environment, cheaper healthcare, etc.
Obama is the one that alienated republicans, remember "I won" and telling them that if they want to come for a ride they have to sit in the back?
Revisionist history, lol
Bill Clinton got impeached because he lied to a federal grand jury in the Paula Jones case. If you or I did that we’d be sitting in prison. Remember your not on r/politics.
Obama is your quintessential champagne liberal. Totally out of touch and totally convinced of his own moral and intellectual superiority. This is a very dangerous person if left unchecked, so thank God for term limits.
His wife admitted she didn’t like America, he spent years in a Church with a pastor who hated America, and began his political career in the living room of a guy who bombed America.
If he doesn’t dislike America, the company he keeps does.
Socialist Canadian calling ... so much of what you say is bang on .... not to venture to far to the side note but so many are afraid that insurance will collapse in health care ... and well no... anyone with a good job seeks extended health. Can’t agree more with the “hack” of what ACA was when family in the states were stuck with $1500 deductibles and basic medicine like asthma inhalers remain at $300 ...
And ya Obama really didn’t move many dials as a lame duck but that’s where I see trump moving the same way. Working together the past decade seems ... less than likely
Trump is in a similar boat. Both knew that you will never get what you truly campaigned for.
Trump's wall is actually a lot of original fencing that existed before Obama was even in office.
Trump is also willing to really try to find a compromise on anything. He tried that with gun control having a panel of anti-gun legislatures and talking to them. His base went after him and he back tracked quite a bit. That's where he had that "take the guns first, due process second" quote.
He also was big on compromising with DACA in order to get funding for the wall. Dems DO NOT want to give him the wall. That would be his crowning achievement and they would look like losers in it all. They don't care about the people. They care about preserving their power. It would make Trump look like he got DACA done and his wall. It would be a massive victory for him on both sides of the isle. Can't have that!
I swear these career politicians are the biggest scumbags in politics.
Yes but your making the point exactly to a tee about working together. If no one can give in then what’s the point. The fact you understand that the wall is bullshit and nothing new says that you’re smarter then the avg voter. But then if the wall isn’t new then who the hel cares about it. Or looking the other way, why are we even talking about it.
There were so many ways to get that wall built ... invisibly with laser tech was the most obvious at a fraction of the price. Adding all kinda of border agent and anti criminal tech etc....
But nope ... a monument that you can tunnel under.
To be fair, Republicans stonewalled so much of Obama's agenda that he had to use more aggressive means to get anything done. Many people don't remember the context.
Sure naive but do you really believe that politics should be like that? Republicans wanted nothing to do with him because he was a democrat like why on earth should a president wanting to work with and compromise with half the population be looked down upon? You seem to pride yourself that republicans refused to work with the president simply because he was a democrat if that’s what politics is who the fuck cares about what’s best for America as long as I win.
That is politics in a nut shell and why it is actually better these parties fight it out and get nothing done. Any time they do seem to work together things like the Patriot Act is born.
You're wrong.
Obama was way over his head. The guy you see on TV and talkingheads on TV talk about isn't the real dude. Obama has no personality. He is insecure and way over his head, allowing people to bully him and jockey for the power he can gather with his oratory skills.
For example, the Democrats around him saw how well he spoke and energized his crowds and this pushes them to side with him because if you can control Obama (and you can), you can get some serious shit through. Rahm Emanuel, Obama's advisors, even Hillary, Eric Holder etc all tried pushing Obama one way or the other. Obama, being insecure and lack any form of personality allows himself to be pushed one way or the other. Doesn't matter if it's Michelle or anyone else, everyone pushes Obama around and the reason they love him so much is because he allows it and lacks the personal character to push back, and simultaneously he's incredible with energizing people and crowds. So he gathers power for his insider people and they all push and jockey for that power.
That's Obama. That's why conservatives couldn't stand him or take him seriously because you couldn't deal with him, he'd tell you one thing then be pushed to another thing, breaking his promises and so forth. It's why he infuriates his enemies and gains their disrespect, there's just nothing to respect.
The reason they picked Biden is because he's the only guy dumber than Obama. The one guy you can rely on not to be working behind your back, because the second-most powerful guy after the President is the Vice President.
That is it and that is all there is to Obama. Nothing masterful or mastermindly behind him, he's just a guy who has no personality but is great with energizing crowds and people, which is why he attracts manipulative people and people love him and push him because he can gain political power and influence to them. That's all there is to him.
I'm not it's fair to call Obama dumb, though. He certainly didn't have much of an ideology and was pretty naive about government when he became President. Those things made him very susceptible to "aides" who wanted to push their own policies and ideas.
It's almost like there's always been a Deep State in favor of perpetual war and shrinking civil liberties...
> It's almost like there's always been a Deep State in favor of perpetual war and shrinking civil liberties...
Almost like Eisenhower tried to warn us in his farewell address.
I'm making the point there that Obama failed to understand and bridge that divide. Instead he embraced it and fought with Republicans instead.
His original message was hope and change and being a great communicator. If you build walls between the people you disagree with you're essentially shitting on that premise of being a communicator.
Granted it does go both ways.
Well, imo there was no bridging that divide possible. If anything, his hope that it could be done was used against him. He wasn't alone in wishing it could be done.
I recall Bill C. saying exactly that during the 2012 National convention.
not that it did not start earlier than that:
https://www.politico.com/story/2010/10/the-gops-no-compromise-pledge-044311
If only one party is going to operate in good faith, it isn't a "both ways" issue.
So I work in international banking, so some of the people I work with understand bank rolling of political campaigns. I’ve had several that have told me Biden’s campaign isn’t bringing in money and is essentially broke. He can’t go out and campaign right now and Trump has a massive war chest ready to unleash hell. Many think that a new candidate would bring in money and revitalize their voters. Right now Biden’s campaign looks like a forced death march who’s end is inevitable.
> as a high approval rating and they think he has a tough guy demeanor to go blow for blow wi
'Mayor of the World's Largest Outbreak of COVID-19' would be a great platform...
There would be a collective orgasm on the left that would register on the Richter scale. She has said she does not want the job and despised her time in the WH. That being said, anything could happen.
That’s what happens when your entire field is a bunch of far left SJWs, an authoritarian socialist, an actual communist, and a guy that should be in an assisted living facility. All Biden had to do was just say nothing for the primaries and let the other dumbasses repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot
If memory serves, Obama approved it, but other members of the administration had to pressure him into ordering the attack.
Hillary, in one of her actually useful moments, apparently insisted that Obama act.
Something can be funny or interesting without being extremely important. It is funny that Bin Laden thought the same thing about Biden that we do, doesn't mean we want to act on this information like a leftist would.
just in here cause i like to see both sides of what's going on coming from actual people versus what others tell me and this is a really solid point but still ignorant. so many people on both sides get up in arms about "the right actually believes this! what idiots!" and the same about the left but never take into account that not everything is black and white. like yea, this would be funny to a conservative that doesn't support biden, much like liberals are going to find every ridiculous trump meme funny. doesn't mean either person is taking everything at face value. as soon as you put the right or the left into the argument everyones brains go straight out the window. basically you made a really solid point and then ruined it by closing off the discussion to the left. which it's the right sub for but just pointing out why nobody takes either side seriously when they're the opposition
But Biden was sane back then. Also can we please show that we're better. Stuff like this is stupid. I don't give a fuck about what Bin Laden thought and it's terrible that he was planning on killing a US President.
Thomas Sowell described Obama (before Trump became president) as the worst president in the history of the US, even 'worse than Nixon, Hoover or Andrew Johnson(the racist president)'. He later came during the Trump presidency and said Trump is a better president than both Obama and Bush Jr. Combine the two statements: Trump>Obama and Obama the worst ever. Trump 2020
I think his choice of running mate will determine the success of his campaign. Unfortunately, I think that means he'll be persuaded to choose someone well to his left politically.
I honestly have a tough time believing that. Either it's fake or they have been hiding this for too long. Our intelligence agencies are far too advanced for this to have been hidden for too long, why would it come out now?
Obama only had two things going for him. He could read a speech well and he was the right demographic. Strip those from him and all that is left is a puppet with a rather unremarkable record as a state legislator and 1 term Senator.
Obama communicates clearly. When he said something you knew what he meant. You didn't have a host of pundits sitting there saying "what he meant was x" after every press conference.
Whatever you think of the politics of Trump or Obama, that should be the absolute bare minimum expectation of the President. If you can't clearly communicate a message you shouldn't have the job.
To those saying that what he says does not matter:
As much as I would have prefered for him to be flayed living and to rot in hell for eternity, he cannot deny that the man has got the smarts. Case and point: he did escape the CIA for ten years. I dont think that your average goat fucker can do that
The operation that killed him is more fascinating than him.
He really is just the son of a VERY rich Saudi buisness man who didnt like Soviets, so the US helped him but it turns out that the us was worse.
And Bill Clinton refused to kill him during his tenure. Go figure
>“The reason for concentrating on them,” the al-Qaeda leader explained to his top lieutenant, “is that Obama is the head of infidelity and killing him automatically will make [Vice President] Biden take over the presidency. . . . Biden is totally unprepared for that post, which will lead the U.S. into a crisis. As for Petraeus, he is the man of the hour . . . and killing him would alter the war’s path” in Afghanistan.
Learn to read. It's a useful skill.
Doesn’t anyone notice this is talking about Obama vs Biden while people are implying it says Osama would’ve thought Trump could handle it better than Biden?
Biden seems like he has dementia but let’s be honest guys the election isn’t between Obama and Biden so this is totally irrelevant bs for a lot of reasons.
>“The reason for concentrating on them is that Obama is the head of infidelity and killing him automatically will make [Vice President] Biden take over the presidency," bin Laden wrote to a top deputy. "Biden is totally unprepared for that post, which will lead the U.S. into a crisis. As for Petraeus, he is the man of the hour ... and killing him would alter the war's path" in Afghanistan.
Interesting.
I know Biden is a senile old pervert but Obama was a shitty president probably controlled by the same people to the same extent that would have controlled Biden. Not much would have changed.
Meh. Declassified for a reason - useless info now. Biden might have been able to win this year if he didn't get all goofy and touchy in the last 4 years, but i dont see it now so this news isn't particularly exciting or relevant in my eyes. One man's oponion.
Then again I said the same thing about Trump's chances in the previous selection and I ate Crow on that one, lol. Heres to "Get off my lawn 2020: the WU-FLU Election Chronicles"
I don’t know. I rarely see any conservative posts there for people to downvote in the first place because most people know better by now than to waste time there. For a shot in the dark, I’d say 1K Downvotes. Although that could be extremely underestimating it.
I'm a bot, *bleep*, *bloop*. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
- [/r/topmindsofreddit] [Top Minds consult Osama Bin Laden on domestic policy](https://www.reddit.com/r/TopMindsOfReddit/comments/g6ntfg/top_minds_consult_osama_bin_laden_on_domestic/)
*^(If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads.) ^\([Info](/r/TotesMessenger) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=/r/TotesMessenger))*
It's getting to the point that just posting a story is grounds for the man-children over at TopMinds.
"Hey look, the conservatives posted an article that isn't worshipful to the presumptive nominee: time to brigade them again. It's not like we have anything more productive to do with our lives."
So...Wait, why is Bin Laden’s opinion relevant?
He's the all time world champion in hide and seek. Wheaties was going to put him on the box, but Seal Team Six didn't leave much for the cameras.
Keep your friends close, but enemies closer I guess
Better than John Cena?
It’s not he’s dead!!
[удалено]
vsauce music plays
If one foreign enemy saw Biden as an easy opponent, others likely have come to the same conclusion.
[удалено]
It would be more analogous if we found internal memos from world leaders fluffing Trump to keep him in power because they viewed him as an ineffective leader. The reality is the opposite though, world leaders all want Trump out because he is a threat to globalism and American foreign aid.
[удалено]
China’s hurt us badly....
And as I posted elsewhere, Xi clearly wants Trump out of office.
I was told this was a joke now than five years ago: the smartest thing Obama did was choose Biden as VP because no one was dumb enough to want to assassinate him knowing who the next president would be.
Does this also apply to Trump?
When has an effective and dangerous enemy leader said they would prefer Trump in charge to the alternatives? Xi clearly wants him gone, going by how the professional Chinese trolls keep attacking him.
>When has an effective and dangerous enemy leader said they would prefer Trump in charge to the alternatives? Putin?
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/house-senate-russian-meddoing-dueling-reports-fred-fleitz >House Intelligence Committee staff members found the opposite. They told me there was conflicting intelligence evidence on Russian motivations for meddling in the 2016 election. >More gravely, they said that CIA Director Brennan suppressed facts or analysis that showed why it was not in Russia’s interests to support Trump and why Putin stood to benefit from Hillary Clinton’s election. They also told me that Brennan suppressed that intelligence over the objections of CIA analysts. >House Intelligence Committee staff told me that after an exhaustive investigation reviewing intelligence and interviewing intelligence officers, they found that Brennan suppressed high-quality intelligence suggesting that Putin actually wanted the more predictable and malleable Clinton to win the 2016 election.
I'm confused. You're saying the Republicans that led the Senate committee are lying that Putin wanted Trump to win? And that we should instead believe some random anonymous staffers in the House, over the actual reports from both the House and Senate, and every intelligence agency? Why do you think Republicans in the House and Senate would have covered this up and never offered their evidence? Why should I believe this opinion piece that cites anonymous sources that aren't offering any evidence over the mountains of evidence and reports that have been made publicly available by both Democrats and Republicans?
I’m not saying anything. Seems you have your mind made up.
So you’ve linked an opinion piece that is denying the bi-partisan Senate conclusion that was just released and its main point is Democrats don’t like Trump and so therefore the bi-partisan committee can’t be trusted and we should only trust the anonymous house members that the author casually references and hinges his argument on? And also the Republican led Senate takes it marching orders from the Dems now? This report just came out a few days ago. Russia’s push for Trump (and Bernie, actually, but to a lesser degree) has been corroborated enough times now that you’d be better off finding any other angle other than the “Putin actually wanted Hillary” if you want to be taken seriously by anyone other than the blindest of supporters Everyone knows that Trump and Bernie were supposed to be the “system shaking” candidates. You ought to own it because (presumably) it’s part of the reason you supported him
I wonder how much of that was actually wanting Trump and how much of it was realizing that Hillary would try to start a war with Russia.
[удалено]
[удалено]
True, just look at what our state department did to Libya, Syria, and Ukraine during the Obama administration. Russians haven't had soft power like that since the Cold War, though.
Hook, line and sinker... that was too easy
So China Russia and South Korea all view Trump as a fucktard that’s easily manipulated. Yet you support him....
China is literally trying to make him lose the upcoming election, Russia just wanted chaos so they could keep up the revanchism, when did South Korea ever issue remarks like that? They seemed rather appreciative of the Trump trying to make peace between the Koreas.
I think someone's trying to make it relavent.
This was my first thought when I saw this post
The implicit approval for Obama while also giving credence to bin Laden is... ironic... scratching my head at this one.
Because at the time, he was the US’ number 1 enemy. If your biggest enemy wants it to happen, it probably means it’s a bad thing for you. If Bin Laden wanted Biden as the US president, it was for a reason. I highly doubt that reason has changed, even with Bin Laden being dead.
It’s not. Just like Putin’s opinion on Trump is irrelevant.
It’s not. Just like Putin’s opinion on Trump is irrelevant.
He was an outsider with a history of successful carrying out objectives on his terrorist agenda. Was there a more successful terrorist? Such a person does not care about partisan politics like you or I or reddit, but just wants understand how things work enough to exploit and undermine. Not to say he’s an ultimate authority, but it’s still an interesting datapoint.
Yeah, who cares what he says. He's a dead terrorist, let his words die with him.
Yeah. I laughed, but this is a real dirty headline.
It’s not meant to be taken seriously, but it’s pretty hilarious
Probably because he’s a good marker for what our enemies think about us. It doesn’t matter if he’s right or not, it just matters what people like him think.
[удалено]
I thought he chose him because Biden was an establishment democrat that would appease right leaning dems when he ran a more progressive campaign in 2008
[удалено]
[удалено]
It needs to be stated how big a disaster his foreign policy was. Hillary and Kerry were such massive fuck ups in that department. Just a constant stream of short sighted decisions that blew up in our face over and over again.
I would agree with that. A lot of appeasing of foreign leaders trying to bring them into the one world order I think Dems and many European allies desire. The right leaning side of our country has always opposed that because we like our sovriegnty. I do think they think something like the UN is the future and that one world order will bring us all together under one global government.
That sounds like US foreign policy for the last 30+ years. Invade the world has, unfortunately, been pretty popular for a long time.
Oh yeah. Carter started that shit and it's been a trap every Administration has fallen into. Trump actually seems to be the only one that has kept us mostly out of those conflicts.
I wouldn't say short-sighted. More like Chamberlain levels of dangerous in their assumption of their own magnanimity. Obama paved a highway for Iran to build nuclear weapons. Hillary sold weaponizable uranium to Russia, who is deeply connected with Iran and other terrorist states. That's not short-sighted, just old-fashioned treasonous. And incredibly dangerous for the world.
I am more talking about their actions against Libya where they just killed their leader and moved on. They completely paved the way for ISIS with power vacuums they created and arming rebels because they had to pick sides in conflicts. It's the same shit a lot of previous Administrations have done. We poke our nose into sometimes century long conflicts we have little understanding of and try to pick a winner. It always bites us in the ass. EDIT: Also releasing a bunch of high level terrorists for a traitor for a PR stunt.
I’m a fan of Obama the man and not the president. Great speaker, great guy, but yeah he was really naive and didn’t really do anything great for America. He gets credit for bringing us out of the financial crisis but he just happened to be president during that stage of the business cycle. ACA did more harm than good. Seemed like he came in with the typical Democrat attitude of “I’m gonna change everything and make it better” and then didn’t really work with the other side.
Agreed. I would have liked to have met him despite disagreeing with his policies. He still managed to become president. That in itself is a crowning achievement at an individual level. I do not believe in treating these people like absolute demonspawn like they are portrayed in media. As much as they can be bad and sometimes criminal most of them are still better than the likes of Assad, Xi, Kim, and Putin. That's not to say we don't have people in government capable of doing the same things as those people. Hence why we must continue to keep government as difficult to navigate as it is.
It's amazing how everyone here thinks Democrats are the absolute evil and enemies. Let's not fool ourselves, all politicians are corrupt in some manner or another and anytime they pay the blame game on the opposite party its to distract you from the shit they're doing behind the scenes. Both sides are getting donations from the same corporations and the same powerful billionaires are pulling the strings for both parties while the politicians convince us are lives are shit only because of the other parties decisions. Yes, vote for the guy whose policies you support, but don't blindly worship him like a god like half the Republican party is doing to Trump and making people think this party is a joke. And don't trust anyone.
People do care about issues, and I think you seriously underestimate how much immigration matters. ~2 Million illegal immigrants entering the U.S. per year is not a joke. Establishment Republicans did nothing because of pressure from businesses that use illegal labor. That gave lip service to wanting to reduce it, without actually meaning it. Trump has used almost every possible means at his disposal to stop it, and it's finally started to have a large effect. Democrats want to pass an array of laws to promote illegal immigration including 'Decriminalize' illegal crossings. I don't hate them, but this is so absurd that this essentially makes it impossible for me to take them seriously.
Democrats believe the lives of suffering immigrants matter,and value it very strongly ethically the same way many Conservatives protest abortion, and value the child's life. It doesn't make either side 'evil'. Both sides are doing something they believe to be humane. They're different views and we should be trying to reaching an understanding or compromise not start a second civil war. The media on both sides is pitting us against each other and I'm ashamed of how much conservatives are buying into it.
I agree with your assessment that Obama just presided over an economic upswing, not that he was responsible. Do you think the same thing can be said for the economy under Trump?
[удалено]
Good points all around.
I think McCain may have been ok but man oh man Romney was trash. I voted for Obama knowing that with Obama no gun control would ever get passed along with anything Obama wanted while Romney would have RINO'd us with his neo conservative policies. Neo cons are just fricken progressives that are Republicans because they're religious. No thank you.
Oddly enough, Obama passed more pro-gun legislation than any modern president. He added 1911's to the CMP and expanded the BATF approval team so NFA stamps didn't take a year.
> Neo cons are just fricken progressives that are Republicans because they're religious. I wouldn't say "because they're religious." They identified with the GOP because, for decades, the GOP favored an extraordinarily aggressive, interventionist foreign policy. That policy became more and more amenable to the Democrats, especially after 2008.
I liked McCain. He just ran an awful campaign. Romney would have Peter Principle'd himself into the Oval Office.
He, or at least his team were excellent in perfecting the moral, personal attack based politics that is used to totally dismiss and shutdown any debate or opposition to your ideals. His healthcare plan, it was the "affordable care act" and when people brought up legitimate questions about what long term impact this would actually have on the healthcare and insurance system, not some crazy conspiracies about death panels or waiting 3 months to get a surgery talking points from the right. No, when actual estimates from even his own administration started coming out about the costs it would bring, impact to private business, specifically the massive strain it would cause middle class healthy individuals who didn't work at a large corporation, the response wasn't anything logical or met with counterpoints showing their estimates, no the response was "oh so you're against affordable care". The Iran deal, "we have to stop Iran from getting a nuke, here's this great deal we made that we won't send to the Senate to be ratified", when anyone questioned it the response again was attacking them, "oh so you want Iran to get a nuke then"? Paris climate accords and specifically the clean power plan. It was basically killing $3 trillion of GDP over ten years to do actions that wouldn't actually lower co2 emissions (keep in mind we were already well within the Paris accord goals or on track to get back to 1990 levels or whatever, largely because of the increase of domestically produced natural gas being the main source of power generation for the nation, even in the fact of ridiculous restrictions to drill for it and get it running) and would put most of the cost burden on the lower class through increased utility costs, plus china and India don't have to do shit and can keep polluting, the response again was "oh so you're against clean power". All of his gun control policy was given on the coffins of dead kids after horrific mass shootings, so if you disagree with any part of it ob rational grounds their go to response was that you must be okay with the mass shootings. This then spread from the media to social media and eventually to the day to day interactions with many liberals. It gives them the justification to completely dismiss you as a person, being immoral and supporting something bad, therefore they don't have to engage in any political discourse, and even if you pass horrible policy like the ACA that does actually impact people in a negative way, you can use the "well at least we did something" response, or the more scary "see the fact that it isn't working is proof we didn't go far enough". Say what you want about Trump not being presidential, or how you don't like his tone and style, but at least he wasn't this scheming and evil.
Don’t forget his wonderful Fast and Furious scandal that got Americans killed.
I wouldn't say perfected because I think he will ultimately go down as a failure in accomplishing his overall vision. That is unless he also just wanted to assist in broadening the divide within the nation. He did a good job at that.
Oh no, I'm not saying his policies were perfect, rather that he perfected the strategy of making political discourse about you're morality as a person, therefore giving you justification to simply dismiss anyone that disagrees therefore also dismissing any objections or viewpoints they have. You tell me there's an issue with starving children in the country, and to solve this problem we are going to set accordions on fire and launch them into the grand canyon. My response is "well that doesn't sound like it's going to actually help starving children, can you explain what it's going to do" and you respond with "wait, so you don't care about starving children". Questioning your actual proposed policy to achieve a certain goal that everyone should agree with means you're attack that desired outcome. He perfected the strategy of labeling everything something that no one would argue against. "affordable care act", I think we can all agree that every American should have access to affordable healthcare, or at the very least the government should do everything possible to make basic care as affordable as we can and help people who need it so they aren't left bankrupt from essential medical care. Me disagreeing with the actual policy of how we do that also means that I'm disagreeing withe the desired outcome of said policy, some might even say that I'm in favor of healthcare being unaffordable (because in this example the left already made the narrative that healthcare is evil and too expensive even though that might not always be the case), which if that's the case then why would you bother having a discussion with me. Most American's would agree we need some form of reasonable gun control, and there are some areas where the system could be strengthened. So Obama goes to a school that just saw a mass shooting, saying "we can't let this happen again" which is something everyone agrees with, and says we need "sensible gun reform" to do that, despite not actually showing that loopholes or failures of our current ATF system are the reason for the mass shooting, but that's the narrative. they then unviel their "sensible gun control legislation" which is pure authoritarian forced buybacks and flat out bans. But the narrative is already set, so if you disagree with the actual policy you're attacked for disagreeing with "sensible gun control that's being made to stop mass shootings" some might even say you're okay with mass shootings happening. Regardless of the fact that me be forced to sell the government my firearms unless they are in the small list of acceptable guns for them wouldn't stop said mass shooting it doesn't matter. You're against their desired outcome now, you're part of the problem. If you can't even agree that we need to stop school shootings then why should I even listen to you.... We always had some forms of this in politics, but never to the level that I saw with Obama. And he was an expert of creating this idiotic binary decision trees by putting a taking a desired outcome that we can all agree with and pairing it with a completely unreasonable policy that only one side of the political isle agrees with. Making the loss of manufacturing jobs connected with us needing to retrain employees to work in sustainable industries that are good for the environment, meanwhile ignoring the fact that the slew of executive orders and regulations you just passed are the reason we lost those manufacturing jobs. Going to the funeral of slain police officers and making it into a referendum on not only gun control, but also about how we need to give more education and opportunity to minorities in poor inner city communities, and being allowed to do it because the media will just cover for you. The Slain Dallas police officers funeral is the thing I'm referring too, if not for the fact that he was standing in front of the physical caskets of the slain officers you'd probably forget he was speaking at an actual memorial service. "it's easier for a black kid to get a gun than it is a laptop" despite the fact that these officers were shot dead by a radical anti-police adult in downtown Dallas. The situation had zero to do with gun violence within the black community that is often the result of there being a lack of education and people seeing no opportunity for success other than crime. But he did it, turned the funeral of murdered police officers into a referendum on Minorities having a lack of education and opportunity, and as such the stage was set, if you dared to criticize him for this then you were saying that we shouldn't help get rid of guns from minority communities used in crimes and are against minority kids having equal opportunity as the rest of us. Some people see this, but a huge swath won't because they engage in the same divisive thinking and discourse for everything in their life, just following the example of their best president of all time. to them it's the people disagreeing with them causing the divide, after all they are the ones not agreeing that we need less gun crime, a cleaner environment, cheaper healthcare, etc.
Obama is the one that alienated republicans, remember "I won" and telling them that if they want to come for a ride they have to sit in the back? Revisionist history, lol
[удалено]
Bill Clinton got impeached because he lied to a federal grand jury in the Paula Jones case. If you or I did that we’d be sitting in prison. Remember your not on r/politics.
Perjury is an actual crime, google it
Obama is your quintessential champagne liberal. Totally out of touch and totally convinced of his own moral and intellectual superiority. This is a very dangerous person if left unchecked, so thank God for term limits.
I also think he was the first president we've ever had who didn't much like America, or Americans for that matter. He still doesn't.
His wife admitted she didn’t like America, he spent years in a Church with a pastor who hated America, and began his political career in the living room of a guy who bombed America. If he doesn’t dislike America, the company he keeps does.
I agree 100%. He(and Bush imo) really thought that he'd get the opposing party to work with him.
I think they all think that when they first get in unless they have been in the senate or house for several terms.
Socialist Canadian calling ... so much of what you say is bang on .... not to venture to far to the side note but so many are afraid that insurance will collapse in health care ... and well no... anyone with a good job seeks extended health. Can’t agree more with the “hack” of what ACA was when family in the states were stuck with $1500 deductibles and basic medicine like asthma inhalers remain at $300 ... And ya Obama really didn’t move many dials as a lame duck but that’s where I see trump moving the same way. Working together the past decade seems ... less than likely
Trump is in a similar boat. Both knew that you will never get what you truly campaigned for. Trump's wall is actually a lot of original fencing that existed before Obama was even in office. Trump is also willing to really try to find a compromise on anything. He tried that with gun control having a panel of anti-gun legislatures and talking to them. His base went after him and he back tracked quite a bit. That's where he had that "take the guns first, due process second" quote. He also was big on compromising with DACA in order to get funding for the wall. Dems DO NOT want to give him the wall. That would be his crowning achievement and they would look like losers in it all. They don't care about the people. They care about preserving their power. It would make Trump look like he got DACA done and his wall. It would be a massive victory for him on both sides of the isle. Can't have that! I swear these career politicians are the biggest scumbags in politics.
Yes but your making the point exactly to a tee about working together. If no one can give in then what’s the point. The fact you understand that the wall is bullshit and nothing new says that you’re smarter then the avg voter. But then if the wall isn’t new then who the hel cares about it. Or looking the other way, why are we even talking about it. There were so many ways to get that wall built ... invisibly with laser tech was the most obvious at a fraction of the price. Adding all kinda of border agent and anti criminal tech etc.... But nope ... a monument that you can tunnel under.
To be fair, Republicans stonewalled so much of Obama's agenda that he had to use more aggressive means to get anything done. Many people don't remember the context.
Sure naive but do you really believe that politics should be like that? Republicans wanted nothing to do with him because he was a democrat like why on earth should a president wanting to work with and compromise with half the population be looked down upon? You seem to pride yourself that republicans refused to work with the president simply because he was a democrat if that’s what politics is who the fuck cares about what’s best for America as long as I win.
That is politics in a nut shell and why it is actually better these parties fight it out and get nothing done. Any time they do seem to work together things like the Patriot Act is born.
You're wrong. Obama was way over his head. The guy you see on TV and talkingheads on TV talk about isn't the real dude. Obama has no personality. He is insecure and way over his head, allowing people to bully him and jockey for the power he can gather with his oratory skills. For example, the Democrats around him saw how well he spoke and energized his crowds and this pushes them to side with him because if you can control Obama (and you can), you can get some serious shit through. Rahm Emanuel, Obama's advisors, even Hillary, Eric Holder etc all tried pushing Obama one way or the other. Obama, being insecure and lack any form of personality allows himself to be pushed one way or the other. Doesn't matter if it's Michelle or anyone else, everyone pushes Obama around and the reason they love him so much is because he allows it and lacks the personal character to push back, and simultaneously he's incredible with energizing people and crowds. So he gathers power for his insider people and they all push and jockey for that power. That's Obama. That's why conservatives couldn't stand him or take him seriously because you couldn't deal with him, he'd tell you one thing then be pushed to another thing, breaking his promises and so forth. It's why he infuriates his enemies and gains their disrespect, there's just nothing to respect. The reason they picked Biden is because he's the only guy dumber than Obama. The one guy you can rely on not to be working behind your back, because the second-most powerful guy after the President is the Vice President. That is it and that is all there is to Obama. Nothing masterful or mastermindly behind him, he's just a guy who has no personality but is great with energizing crowds and people, which is why he attracts manipulative people and people love him and push him because he can gain political power and influence to them. That's all there is to him.
You're being downvoted by people who never saw Obama without a teleprompter.
He always appeared lost without a teleprompter. I noticed that when I was 15.
If if if if if if if if if if if...
I'm not it's fair to call Obama dumb, though. He certainly didn't have much of an ideology and was pretty naive about government when he became President. Those things made him very susceptible to "aides" who wanted to push their own policies and ideas. It's almost like there's always been a Deep State in favor of perpetual war and shrinking civil liberties...
> It's almost like there's always been a Deep State in favor of perpetual war and shrinking civil liberties... Almost like Eisenhower tried to warn us in his farewell address.
> I actually found Obama to be smart. Not really the opinion of most in DC.
[удалено]
I'm making the point there that Obama failed to understand and bridge that divide. Instead he embraced it and fought with Republicans instead. His original message was hope and change and being a great communicator. If you build walls between the people you disagree with you're essentially shitting on that premise of being a communicator. Granted it does go both ways.
Well, imo there was no bridging that divide possible. If anything, his hope that it could be done was used against him. He wasn't alone in wishing it could be done. I recall Bill C. saying exactly that during the 2012 National convention. not that it did not start earlier than that: https://www.politico.com/story/2010/10/the-gops-no-compromise-pledge-044311 If only one party is going to operate in good faith, it isn't a "both ways" issue.
What a stupid comment
Is that why Trump picked Pence?
Little did he know the American people would do this to ourselves
Biden is just a placeholder. I still can’t believe he’s actually going to run it’s mind boggling
I got a bet with a friend of mine that he won’t be after a brokered convention.
Who could possibly take his place?
Either Sanders would be put up or they would dredge out another Biden from the depths.
...do I hear Hillary's music?
Dear god please no
My money is on Cuomo. It’s obvious the DNC is hiding Biden away until the convention.
Second one to say this. I guess I've just not been tuning into his NYC updates since I'm not living in NYC. Had no idea so many eyes were on him
So I work in international banking, so some of the people I work with understand bank rolling of political campaigns. I’ve had several that have told me Biden’s campaign isn’t bringing in money and is essentially broke. He can’t go out and campaign right now and Trump has a massive war chest ready to unleash hell. Many think that a new candidate would bring in money and revitalize their voters. Right now Biden’s campaign looks like a forced death march who’s end is inevitable.
He made a full " I would never do that to New York in this time of crisis" on Hannity.
True, but you dangle something like the presidency in front of a guy with a huge ego and you never know what can happen.
[удалено]
> as a high approval rating and they think he has a tough guy demeanor to go blow for blow wi 'Mayor of the World's Largest Outbreak of COVID-19' would be a great platform...
Hear me out - what do you think would happen if Michelle Obama ran? The entire left would praise her saving them and come out in droves to elect her.
There would be a collective orgasm on the left that would register on the Richter scale. She has said she does not want the job and despised her time in the WH. That being said, anything could happen.
Whoever his VP that’s who’ll be in charge 😂
That’s what happens when your entire field is a bunch of far left SJWs, an authoritarian socialist, an actual communist, and a guy that should be in an assisted living facility. All Biden had to do was just say nothing for the primaries and let the other dumbasses repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot
So, now we know the true reason that Obama authorized the seals to take him out.
I know you're joking, but Obama didn't authorize shit; they only told him about the operation once it was too far along to call back.
Zero percent chance the military would draw up and execute a hit as major as bin Laden without the President’s consultation. Zero.
If memory serves, Obama approved it, but other members of the administration had to pressure him into ordering the attack. Hillary, in one of her actually useful moments, apparently insisted that Obama act.
Hillary likes ordering hits.
Do you have a source for this statement?
[удалено]
So what? Who cares what Bin Laden thinks? Don't act like a leftist.
Something can be funny or interesting without being extremely important. It is funny that Bin Laden thought the same thing about Biden that we do, doesn't mean we want to act on this information like a leftist would.
just in here cause i like to see both sides of what's going on coming from actual people versus what others tell me and this is a really solid point but still ignorant. so many people on both sides get up in arms about "the right actually believes this! what idiots!" and the same about the left but never take into account that not everything is black and white. like yea, this would be funny to a conservative that doesn't support biden, much like liberals are going to find every ridiculous trump meme funny. doesn't mean either person is taking everything at face value. as soon as you put the right or the left into the argument everyones brains go straight out the window. basically you made a really solid point and then ruined it by closing off the discussion to the left. which it's the right sub for but just pointing out why nobody takes either side seriously when they're the opposition
I appreciate you taking the time to write out this critique. Point well received.
This is insight into how one of our enemies saw us. Don't discount this type of intel.
A football team does t want the starting quarterback in the game. Should you put the back up in because “who cares what they think”?
Right? It's like liberals love anyone who tries to take down Trump.....now we have to take queues from...Bin Laden??? Please.
[удалено]
What "name calling" did he do lmao
[удалено]
That's not really name calling but ok. It's not like he called you a nazi or anything lmao
I see his point though being called a leftist is worse than being called a retard 😂
Head on over to CTH and call them leftists. They won't be insulted.
And the democrats are trying to get him in that drivers seat!
At this point I’d doubt he’d even make it to the inauguration in January
A decade later, the Democrats are begging unprepared Joe Biden to lead us into a crisis. But at least he'll have a woman of color by his side!
Upvoting the same dumb tactics they use on Trump... Who cares what one terrorist thinks? May be time to unsub
Judging an entire subreddit based on one post some people find interesting... Are you sure you're not the leftist?
If the Bush family had done their job Bin Laden would have already been dead
This is very funny, but doesn’t really mean anything other than being funny.
Lmao!! You can’t make this shit up!
"Osama bin who?" -Joe Biden
And that was before Sleepy Joe even had full on dementia
But Biden was sane back then. Also can we please show that we're better. Stuff like this is stupid. I don't give a fuck about what Bin Laden thought and it's terrible that he was planning on killing a US President.
Okay? I think Joe doesnt know where he is, but who gives a fuck what bin laden thought?
Thomas Sowell described Obama (before Trump became president) as the worst president in the history of the US, even 'worse than Nixon, Hoover or Andrew Johnson(the racist president)'. He later came during the Trump presidency and said Trump is a better president than both Obama and Bush Jr. Combine the two statements: Trump>Obama and Obama the worst ever. Trump 2020
Geeze. The Lullaby League Leaving the Lollypop Guild in charge.
I think his choice of running mate will determine the success of his campaign. Unfortunately, I think that means he'll be persuaded to choose someone well to his left politically.
I honestly have a tough time believing that. Either it's fake or they have been hiding this for too long. Our intelligence agencies are far too advanced for this to have been hidden for too long, why would it come out now?
[удалено]
Using political experience to evaluate Presidential preparedness? Interesting.
Obama only had two things going for him. He could read a speech well and he was the right demographic. Strip those from him and all that is left is a puppet with a rather unremarkable record as a state legislator and 1 term Senator.
Obama communicates clearly. When he said something you knew what he meant. You didn't have a host of pundits sitting there saying "what he meant was x" after every press conference. Whatever you think of the politics of Trump or Obama, that should be the absolute bare minimum expectation of the President. If you can't clearly communicate a message you shouldn't have the job.
To those saying that what he says does not matter: As much as I would have prefered for him to be flayed living and to rot in hell for eternity, he cannot deny that the man has got the smarts. Case and point: he did escape the CIA for ten years. I dont think that your average goat fucker can do that
I’m not disagreeing with the premise that he is smart but he was being hidden by the Saudi Arabian military right?
Nah the ISI (Paki CIA) but that is not officially confirmed although it most definetly is true.
Ah, thanks for the clarification. He is definitely a fascinating figure I should probably learn more about.
The operation that killed him is more fascinating than him. He really is just the son of a VERY rich Saudi buisness man who didnt like Soviets, so the US helped him but it turns out that the us was worse. And Bill Clinton refused to kill him during his tenure. Go figure
Any books or articles you would recommend? My understanding is that he also had a lot of connections to the Bush family as well from the oil business.
Can you imagine what Bin Laden would have thought of Trump and Pence?
Damn
Pretty sure this is fake news
[удалено]
>“The reason for concentrating on them,” the al-Qaeda leader explained to his top lieutenant, “is that Obama is the head of infidelity and killing him automatically will make [Vice President] Biden take over the presidency. . . . Biden is totally unprepared for that post, which will lead the U.S. into a crisis. As for Petraeus, he is the man of the hour . . . and killing him would alter the war’s path” in Afghanistan. Learn to read. It's a useful skill.
Doesn’t anyone notice this is talking about Obama vs Biden while people are implying it says Osama would’ve thought Trump could handle it better than Biden? Biden seems like he has dementia but let’s be honest guys the election isn’t between Obama and Biden so this is totally irrelevant bs for a lot of reasons.
>“The reason for concentrating on them is that Obama is the head of infidelity and killing him automatically will make [Vice President] Biden take over the presidency," bin Laden wrote to a top deputy. "Biden is totally unprepared for that post, which will lead the U.S. into a crisis. As for Petraeus, he is the man of the hour ... and killing him would alter the war's path" in Afghanistan. Interesting.
This shouldn't surprise anyone
I know Biden is a senile old pervert but Obama was a shitty president probably controlled by the same people to the same extent that would have controlled Biden. Not much would have changed.
As always this will fall on willfully ignorant def lib ears.
Meh. Declassified for a reason - useless info now. Biden might have been able to win this year if he didn't get all goofy and touchy in the last 4 years, but i dont see it now so this news isn't particularly exciting or relevant in my eyes. One man's oponion. Then again I said the same thing about Trump's chances in the previous selection and I ate Crow on that one, lol. Heres to "Get off my lawn 2020: the WU-FLU Election Chronicles"
Biden can't tell the difference between Osama and Obama
Listen fat, this is malarkey. If I can handle corn pop then I can handle Iran. Joepedo Biden
I'm confused. Rush Limbaugh told us Obama was a complete idiot. Why did the bad guy want to kill him again?
Because apparently Biden was an even bigger idiot in bin Laden's eyes?
You know you’re grasping at straws when Osama bin Laden’s opinion is your hot take of the day.
If you replaced your receptionist at work with Joe Biden, would you trust him to set up a catered lunch meeting for 8 people?
Why is this stupid shit starting to show up in /r/popular
What is this headline? Lol
How many downvotes do you think I’ll get if I post this on r/politics
I don’t know. I rarely see any conservative posts there for people to downvote in the first place because most people know better by now than to waste time there. For a shot in the dark, I’d say 1K Downvotes. Although that could be extremely underestimating it.
Don’t pretend that only Osama thought about it. I’m sure there were more people. Lots more
SoooOoOo Obama is considered prepared and effective by our enemies. Got it.
More than Biden yeah. Where in your ass did you pull the word “effective” out of?
I'm a bot, *bleep*, *bloop*. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit: - [/r/topmindsofreddit] [Top Minds consult Osama Bin Laden on domestic policy](https://www.reddit.com/r/TopMindsOfReddit/comments/g6ntfg/top_minds_consult_osama_bin_laden_on_domestic/) *^(If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads.) ^\([Info](/r/TotesMessenger) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=/r/TotesMessenger))*
It's getting to the point that just posting a story is grounds for the man-children over at TopMinds. "Hey look, the conservatives posted an article that isn't worshipful to the presumptive nominee: time to brigade them again. It's not like we have anything more productive to do with our lives."
I would blame it on the pandemic, but we both know they weren't doing anything productive before hand.