Therefore calling it by accurate descriptors that aren't misleading and taken as talking points by "the other team" is very, very important.
For a bunch of people that like to jump on every and any statement made by a POTUS (myself included here, I've done it) the fact semantics are important sure gets lost a lot. This is a politics board after all
Right. And my intended implication is Putin took Obama's limp wristed "climate change" answer, and then the subsequent ridicule of Romney's answer as "wow, Obama doesn't respect my ability to be a global player? Nice... Ripe for the taking".
With 43, Clinton, 41 or Regan as POTUS does anyone think Putin does what he does? I don't know, maybe, but I'm not so sure to be honest.
I thought that whole thing was a big deal then, and still do now. Obama's non-answer more of an issue than any of it. If you are a ruthless aggressor who seeks to regain dominance and a strong footing on the world stage, does the complete and total pussy answer of "climate change" not send you the clear signal that the CiC of your biggest rival is ultimately a weak, spineless politician first, who won't stand up if you punch him in the mouth?
It's not like this is the only time Obama looked and spoke like a little bitch, just a very obvious, public and fitting example along the lines of the original argument. If Putin is who you all say he is... This projection of weakness isn't a good thing.
Now we have Trump who has no political skill, and the only fucking hope we have is he ISN'T acting like an appeasing pussy in direct communication unlike how he comes off in the press.
Again, not fucking up and electing Romney would have saved us from all this shit.
The absurdity is on purpose. I'm taking cheap shots at SMH.