how did this board become obama vrs putin?

[SwampG8r]

aren't they both working to try and broker a peaceful solution in Syria?

it seems obvious to me that Russia was more than happy to grasp at Kerry's gaffe and look for diplomatic options.
why are so many here speaking so ill of someone who is working to help our potus?

[Blue Owl]

1. It's almost like Putin is rearing his head in DU's airspace

[Summer Hathaway]

4. I'm just pissed

that we didn't get a heads-up from Sarah Palin.

Surely she saw him heading towards DU from her front porch.

[SwampG8r]

26. slept right through

her 3 am phone call

[Summer Hathaway]

27. In what respect, SwampG8r?

[SwampG8r]

28. its 3 am on sarahs porch

[Pretzel_Warrior]

2. For reals? Seems you are not reading the subtext

Of the events from the last few days.

[Summer Hathaway]

3. If you believe that Putin

is 'working to help our POTUS' out of the goodness of his heart, rather than attempting to protect his own interests in Syria, you have answered your own question.

[Scootaloo]

7. While of course, Obama IS acting from the sheer goodness of his heart...

"US GOOD THEM BAD!" is a pitiful refrain I've come to expect from Freepers and BOGgers.

Neither man is conducting a charity operation here, obviously.

[Summer Hathaway]

10. If you think Obama's stance on this issue

is "US GOOD THEM BAD", perhaps you should brush up on your English comprehension.

And this time, don't use "SNL Tonto-Speak for Dummies" as a textbook.

[Scootaloo]

31. I never attributed it to Obama

I attributed it to BOGers and freepers. Don't tell me to brush up on English comprehension when you're tripping up like that.

Nice rebuttal you've got there, by the way. I point out neither of these dudes is acting from sheer goodness, and all you can do is get your pants in a knot over your own failure to finish a sentence.

[Summer Hathaway]

33. Putting "BOGers and Freepers" in the same category

is rather laughable, don't you think?

It's not the BOGers who are drooling over Putin's NYT editorial, or citing The Daily Caller as a legitimate news source.

[cui bono]

50. The comparison is made because both put a man before principles.

Both support their "team" no matter what they do. Sadly, it's not laughable at all. Maybe just for a moment when first reading some of the posts stretching to make sense of their fantasy and convince others how true it is, but then very scary that people who are supposedly the ones who think things through and live in the reality based world actually blindly support someone just because, even when his policies are so clearly against their own interests.

[Summer Hathaway]

53. You realize that saying things like

"they put a man before principles" or "blindly support someone" doesn't actually make that a fact, right?

Ah, no, actually I take that back - you probably DO believe that if you keep posting that BS, it actually WILL make it a fact.

It's always amusing to see posters here insisting that Obama-supporters are delusional 'fans' who will tolerate no criticism of the man - especially when most of them will tolerate no criticism of people like Greenwald, Snowden or Assange.

I can only suppose that you are operating under the idea that if you repeat a non-truth often enough, it will eventually be perceived as the truth.

And sadly, on DU these days, that idea has actually taken hold - in the same way it has on Fox-News.

[cui bono]

57. It's in black and white all over this board. I'm not the only one who sees it.

Glad you are amused by it all. It seriously frightens me to see this behavior here.

You can say all you want about me thinking if I repeat something it doesn't make it true. I don't need to repeat it. You think I want it to be true? No sirree, I don't want it to be true. All you have to do is read a few threads and you'll see it for yourself.

By the same token, you saying everything you said doesn't make what I said false. And I know you know it's not false. It's clear as day that what I said is true. The only way you wouldn't see it is if you yourself are blinded or if you aren't reading much on here.

[Summer Hathaway]

60. What I have seen

is posts like yours, talking about Obama supporters being blind worshippers, mindless cheerleaders, 'cult of personality' adherents, man-fans, etc.

What I haven't seen is any evidence thereof. Now, the reason I see no such evidence is because I, unlike some people here, do not attempt to "read" my own personal biases into something someone says.

I do NOT read a post that says "I support Obama" and immediately take that to mean the poster only supports Obama because they are 'blinded' to the truth, and are automatically agreeing with him 100% of the time, on 100% of the issues.

That is, however, what YOU see - because it validates a conclusion you came to long ago, without any facts to back up that conclusion in the first instance.

You are a victim of propaganda, clinging to a notion you've seen repeated again and again on this site - "Obama supporters are all blind followers." And just like a Fox-News viewer, you have come to believe it has some basis in fact - even when no such 'facts' are ever forthcoming.

There have been many posts over the last week by staunch Obama-supporters who are vehemently opposed to any military intervention in Syria. But no one here has cared to notice - because it blows the whole "they'll agree with him no matter what" meme to shreds.

Reading DU over the past year and a half has been an incredible education in how people who claim to be non-locksteppers are so easily manipulated into being exactly that. And how quickly the now easily-manipulated target another group, and accuse them of being everything they don't want to admit they have become themselves.

[cui bono]

65. Spare me the self righteous rant. You're wrong.

I had an argument with someone who was in complete denial that Obama ever offered up SS. Even after I posted a link to a quote from Carney.

There are many people defending spying on American citizens.

There are people defending Obama's every move, even when he is expanding what Bush did. And you know when Bush did it there was an outcry, but when Obama does the very same thing, and more of it, they defend him.

If you don't see it you are simply not reading many posts on DU. You can continue to deny it but you are simply wrong.

And with your holier than thou attitude I don't really believe you don't see it, I believe you are just playing word games and denying it. Whatever. I don't care to have discussions with people who condescend and refuse to acknowledge what is so clearly evident.

[VanillaRhapsody]

61. like they keep posting "John Kerry's gaffe" as if it is said enough

we will just have to accept it as fact!

[Summer Hathaway]

62. Exactly.

Like posting phrases like "mushroom cloud" and "yellowcake" over, and over, and over would convince everyone that Syria = Iraq/Obama = W.

A classic Fox-News propaganda tactic - and for some here, a successful one.

[VanillaRhapsody]

64. Remember this...

"It is exactly like Iraq"!

ad infinitum!

[SwampG8r]

13. be nice now you scamp!

I think we already make mental allowances for American interests
and I never believe the other side is doing me right when I negotiate
so I fully get putins angle in this and the US angle too
as for goodness of heart I have to give the potus the points for good heartedness
the Russians run Syria so they have the gassed people on their hands too

[SwampG8r]

8. of course he is

working with potus to secure his interests Syria
that is a given
Syria was a soviet puppet and has remained in the Russian sphere
I would expect nothing less than for the leader of a country to work to secure the interests of his country
my question is about the suddenly focused hate being dropped on him
and don't be confused
I think he is an arrogant human rights abuser and every shade of asshole that asshole comes in
but given that at this time he is trying to further the claimed goals of the potus in Syria
why stir hatred for him?
I don't get how spitting on putin whiile he is actually doing quite possibly his first actual public service is cool considering it is in the US best interests that he succeed

[Summer Hathaway]

14. I don't think the problem here

is the "suddenly focused hate being dropped on him", so much as the suddenly-focused love and adoration being dropped on him by a certain contingent.

It's the "All praise Putin" threads that are attracting the hatred - as well they should.

[SwampG8r]

24. almost all of what i see is spin

there are at least 2 ops with diametrically opposed conclusions based on the same link
what we know is
we were gonna
Kerry said something
Russians decided to treat it as a proposal
we are waiting to see if proposal works out
other than that all I see is spin

[iamthebandfanman]

52. Oh course, Syria is a 'satellite' state of Russia

Its their ally, if they don't solve this and we strike.. guess who looks like a second rate world power? yep.

he knows what hes doing, and I do hope he succeeds at the goal.. tho I know he cant be trusted, but then again.. his toughness and russias ability to defend its allies is at stake!

[joshcryer]

5. Putin is more concrned about Tartus and Gazprom's pipelines.

Russia does have a near monopoly on gas sold to Europe.

Other than that Putin doesn't really care about the dead or American interests.

[KittyWampus]

9. Tartus. Come to find out, it's a port mostly in name only. It's like a bunch of pontoons.

LOL!

The Tartus facility can accommodate four medium sized vessels only if both of its 100 meter long floating piers located on the inside of the northern breakwater were operational. It is not capable of hosting any of the Russian Navy's current major warships which range in length from the 129 meter Neustrashimyy frigate through the 163 meter Udaloy destroyer, and much less cruisers such as the 186.4 meter Slava class, the 252 meter Kirov class, and the 305 meter Kuznetsov class.

[SwampG8r]

16. tartus is long term russian planning

its pontoons now but that will become a major facility in years to come
its one of the reasons putin is so willing to work with us

[joshcryer]

20. It's certainly not built up, but it's getting there:

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=loc:34.91385,35.87408&hl=en&ll=34.908423,35.874245&spn=0.009502,0.01929&t=h&z=16

[SwampG8r]

11. i agree he doesnt care about american interests

but they converge with ours here
he doesn't want us in there and we don't really want to be up in there
so why wipe ass with the guy while he is helping?
there have been 6 years I think I have been on DU
I have seen maybe 5 OP's about putin before the nsa blowback

[joshcryer]

15. It's more that he got us to this point to begin with.

Had he signed off on sanctions years ago (particularly arms sanctions) the picture might look a lot different. 100-150 dead a day might not have happened. I'm saying he culpable. I'm saying it's BS that the US had to threaten force to get Russia to act. Frankly the US should've just wiped its hands of it and pointed the finger directly at Russia.

But, oh, no, the US has to throw bombs around to get its point across. :/

[SwampG8r]

18. when we deal with russia it

always ends up in a threat
they are #2 they have to look tough
I know Kerry was involved in Syria early
was anyone else in state dept working the Russians to put assad in line?
I agree its bullshit

[Union Scribe]

6. Because crediting anyone or any entity

(Putin, UN inspectors, Congress, the American people, etc) in pursuing diplomatic resolution is seen as taking credit away from a certain other national leader, and that cannot be tolerated under any circumstances.

[SwampG8r]

12. i see that as partly true in that

many want to control the narrative

[joshcryer]

17. You don't credit the guy stalling the team...

...just because he stops stalling.

[SwampG8r]

21. i see what you are saying

wasn't the objective to stop the stalling?
really we should be upset that we didn't push the Russians to reel assad in sooner
from what I get putin slapped him right into a muzzle collar rather than have us intervene
that says he would have been amenable to doing it sooner but it wasn't made politically important enough

[joshcryer]

23. That's unclear, Russia is waffling on UN action.

And doesn't appear to want to use Chapter 6 wording in any resolution, which of course wouldn't be favored by the US or any of the other western UNSC actors.

[sibelian]

36. If there's a "team", sure.

[joshcryer]

38. Maybe by joining the stalling stopped?

Imagine a scenario where by not joining the team was losing and that was stalling the team.

[sibelian]

56. Yes.

If there's a team.

[woo me with science]

19. Incessant propaganda to bully us into STUPIDITY.

There will eventually be a strike in Syria, because the Powers that Be will demand it. The propaganda machine must belligerently demand complete and emotionally fervent loyalty to Obama and complete and emotionally fervent contempt toward the Other Side for when that strike occurs.

It's the same simplistic, "with us or against us" mentality that tries to argue that, since a Paul may oppose strikes, we must support them.

It's interesting, and painful as an American, to watch political discourse in countries with governments that still retain some measure of respect for their citizenry, in which politicians talk to the people rather than trying to manipulate, advertise, and bully them into submission.

There was a clip posted here at DU recently of an Australian Prime Minister (for labor?) defending marriage equality to a group of Australian citizens. It was a stunning thing to watch for Americans used to the patronizing, infantilizing, and insulting political theater that is doled out for our consumption - being talked down to like children and told to watch gory Youtube videos to shape our political opinions. This politician addressed the audience as adults, with complex sentences and with the expectation that his audience was capable of processing and considering complex intellectual, ethical, and moral arguments.

The nasty, contemptuous, emotive, propagandistic bids to namecall and ridicule Putin here are deliberate, familiar attempts to bully people into thinking stupidly. We are continually subjected to bids for STUPID thinking and STUPID judgments. We hate Ron Paul; therefore you must oppose everything Ron Paul ever does. We hate Greenwald; therefore, NSA spying is irrelevant. We hate Putin; therefore absolutely nothing in that editorial...not even a single WORD....could possibly have *any* merit to it. We are to blindly pick a side and STUPIDLY wave our flags, belligerently, defiantly, and STUPIDLY ignoring any gray areas or moral or intellectual complexities whatsoever.

Reject the bids to think STUPIDLY. A STUPID citizenry will be ruled by thieves and warmongers.

[joshcryer]

22. Most of that editorial was canned talking points and misrepresentation.

The only thing about it that I would agree with would be about American exceptionalism. Otherwise he is off base saying that the UN could be marginalized when he's been the one marginalizing the UN on Syria for two years now. He's off base saying that it would be in the interests of the rebels to attack themselves to get intervention when he initially says that any strikes would result in an escalation of attacks. (How does an escalation help the rebels?)

It's really a jumbled mix of the canned talking points I've seen all over DU the past couple of weeks, which is really what makes me wonder where the talking points are coming from to begin with.

[sibelian]

37. Calling something a "canned talking point"

doesn't actually contradict it.

[joshcryer]

40. Merely an attempt to characterize it as I saw it.

The content of my post is enough contradiction but if you want I can write a counter-op-ed to Putin and maybe become famous...

[sibelian]

58. Please do.

There's a considerable difference between characterisation and contradiction.

[Waiting For Everyman]

44. I agree.

Had the same thought myself about where it might've come from. Cut and paste. Lots of sites have the same points.

[joshcryer]

48. Saw your post in the other thread.

Glad I'm not the only one who saw it.

There's another poster here who is posting RT propaganda about the anti-LGBT legislation there. Acting as if pro-LGBT groups are paid US shills as opposed to legitimate groups. It comes straight from RT. I'm seeing a lot of similarity in the thought processes.

[Amonester]

25. The thieve here is pout-in ($40bn)

Stole it.

[leftstreet]

29. +1

[cui bono]

49. Well said.

Too bad the ones who most need to grasp this won't allow themselves to even hear it.

[Cha]

30. Guess. First of all it wasn't "a gaffe" from Kerry..

"The White House Admits that Kerry’s ‘Off The Cuff’ Syria Comment Was Planned for Months"

By: Jason EasleySep. 10th, 2013

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/09/10/white-house-admits-kerrys-off-cuff-syria-comment-planned-months.html

Why are so many here speaking so ill of our POTUS? nevermind.. I know the answer.

[SwampG8r]

34. i can tell by the way you have framed your reply

that you didn't come here to discuss
why are you so intent on speaking ill of someone who is helping our potus?
was it a gafe wasn't it a gaffe is a silly sidelines deflection
it was a gaffe and it was unplanned
anyone claiming otherwise and claiming advance planning does a disservice to the potus
to have planned this in advance you would have had to know gas was going to be used and then stand by and do nothing while it was used to advance a political agenda
I don't think the potus is the kind of man who stands knowingly and lets others be gassed to death
I cant speak for you

[Cha]

41. It was planned for months..

President Obama has been working on getting assad to give up his chemical weapons for two years. Nothing's happened until the use of force entered into the picture.

President Obama doesn't care if Putin gets the credit. That's what good negotiators do... as long as the weapons are gone. Done. Fini.

[cui bono]

59. Feeling good after that big stretch? n/t

[SwampG8r]

67. so you stick by your claim that obama stood by willingly as children were gassed to death?

shame on you
Obama may be imperfect but to say he would allow children to be gassed is sickening

[Autumn]

47. OMG They have hidden time travel from us

You nipped that right in the bud.

[SwampG8r]

68. biggest non use of simple

logic I have seen in my life

[Comrade Grumpy]

54. Some people make the case of your OP for you.

[cthulu2016]

43. The linked article is a pack of lies from a seriously F'd up website

The headline is an out-and-out lie, and it goes downhill from there.

It may be better to link to legitimate sources when making factual claims, rather than some propagandist's blog.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. They're both looking for Great Statesman creds at the expense of the Syrians.

They both should do the world a favor and butt-out.

[liberal_at_heart]

42. +1

[woo me with science]

45. I think this is probably closer to the truth

than anything I have read on this today.

[Ellipsis]

35. oh hhhoo hhooh ho

[musical_soul]

39. I hope that Putin can talk Obama down...

but honestly, I've never trusted Putin.

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. I will be very cynical

It comes down to MY TEAM or yours.

Some of us have enough sophistication not to get into that, and see that essay in the NYT for the remarkable moment in international relations it is. Then you see the answer on CNN by the WH.

It is extremely rare. I can think of something like this, but took much longer, due to communications technology, before World War I.

My brother in law and I were joking in a moment of levity, what is next? An open twitter feed?

[AgingAmerican]

51. I don't know but it is getting rediculous

nt

[treestar]

55. Putin didn't have to wait for any "gaffe" he could have done the right thing to

start with! Why did Russia veto UN action? They didn't have to do that. They could have done the right thing and allowed the UN to do this.

Putin only did this at all because it's preferable to the US using force.

The answer is that ODS is so strong, they'd rather credit a third world dictator - whose motives are entirely due to pure self interest of Russia, not any desire to see his client state not have chemical weapons. He was fine with that until he faced US destruction of his interests there.

They want to continue their oil monopoly. Assad lets them do that. They care more about their oil monopoly than use of chemical weapons. If the US is going to strike Syria, they lose that control.

[VanillaRhapsody]

63. +1

[NuttyFluffers]

66. when out of ideas, push identity politics

hence cult of personality develops.

all the leaders involved are not the only smart people involved. and none of them are the sole orchestrators of everyone else. that assumes demigod status levels of not only human manipulation, but event manipulation.

there can be no chess, 3D or not, without other players. and to state they alone think umpteen moves ahead and are never surprised is laughable. big events get away from everyone, it is the nature of big events.

and since that's a scary fact for some, rallying around a personality becomes pivotal to deflect cognitive dissonance.

hence identity politics come to the forefront. without jingoism to keep busy finding hidden enemies some would be afraid that things are getting too big and might get out of hand. it's the grasping at straw during a storm; the scared mind will try to find security anywhere familiar.

[Capt. Obvious]

69. Just the latest chapter in this boring fucking book

Next chapter, Glenn Greenwald may make a return, but my money's on Larry Summers.