You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
6 points

TBF McCain was spot on on Putin in a way that Obama was not.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points
*

Obama was seen as severely lacking in foreign policy credentials, he was only in his first Senate term and didn’t have any other national political experience before running in 2008. That was part of the reason he picked Biden for VP in the first place, it offered some reassurance for voters who thought Obama was weak on foreign policy.

Even so, when Putin invaded Crimea in 2014 Obama kind of just yawned and let him. The UN passed a few resolutions, but that was that. I don’t think Biden would have rolled over if he were President at the time. I think if you asked Biden about any major disagreements he had with Obama, that might be at the top of the list.

I also think McCain would have handled it differently, too. He would have made a good President, even if I would have disagreed with him more. He was better than the absolute trash the GOP puts up these days.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Are you talking about the debate with Mitt Romney?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Fair enough! Not that I think it means Obama-McCain fits into the dumb-smart dichotomy.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

And yet everything else policy wise he was a dinosaur.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 13K

    Monthly active users

  • 11K

    Posts

  • 331K

    Comments