|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 26 2018 16:06 CatharsisUT wrote:
Russian interference in US elections.
So if we switched to US interference in Russian election, that to you isn't a part of 'the issue'?
On February 26 2018 18:29 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2018 15:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2018 14:46 CatharsisUT wrote:
Well, I'm impressed that I have displayed an "obsession" in one post - it seemed relevant to demonstrate that the idea that McCarthy is not a partisan in discussing this topic is not accurate. I don't even have an opinion on the content, haven't read this one yet, but I objected to the presentation of him in this situation as some detached, non-partisan observer. He's not.
GH, I agree that the hypocrisy of the US complaining about election interference is pretty rank. I do think there's something to the idea that its perceived importance is higher than it would be otherwise because the beneficiary appears to be somewhere between grateful to receive it and active in obtaining it. Whatever the reality is, Trump's hesitation to work to prevent it in the future magnifies the issue. What exactly is "the issue" to you? The issue is that our president isn't working to defend our country against hostile nations. If Russia hacked things, but Clinton won anyways and set out to improve cyber security and sanctioned Russia, then I wouldn't be so worried about Russian hacking. The government would be taking care of the problem or at least trying. If Donald Trump would enforce the sanctions that congress passed, I'd feel a little better. If he'd quit calling it fake news and actually tried to improve cyber security in response, then I'd feel a little better. Instead, it certainly seems like he has encouraged it and possibly been complicit in it. It helps him win and that's the only thing he cares about and many Republicans have gone along with it. Party over country. That concerns me and it's completely unacceptable. That we influence the elections in other countries is immaterial to this issue. Those countries should boost their security and/or sanction the US (probably wouldn't work out for them, advantage of being the US). We live in a country that can do something about foreign powers meddling in our elections. We should do something about it.
Are you really saying that the US should punish those that imitate our behavior but our behavior is immaterial to the issue of other countries responding in kind?
I also have to ask, did you read the legislative solution Democrats presumably would have passed under Clinton (or not since she wouldn't pass much with Republicans in charge of the other 2 branches)? It was piss poor and the whole "I would have felt a little better" is part of how they keep the game going. Like the war on drugs "at least made people feel a little better" without remotely addressing the issues, it's long been my contention that what Ren is saying is too true. That had Clinton won and congress made some superficial moves it wouldn't be nearly the issue it's been even though the core problems that led to the interference and any effectiveness it had would remain unaddressed and wouldn't even be on your minds.
|
On February 26 2018 20:32 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2018 16:06 CatharsisUT wrote:
Russian interference in US elections. So if we switched to US interference in Russian election, that to you isn't a part of 'the issue'? Show nested quote +On February 26 2018 18:29 RenSC2 wrote:On February 26 2018 15:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2018 14:46 CatharsisUT wrote:
Well, I'm impressed that I have displayed an "obsession" in one post - it seemed relevant to demonstrate that the idea that McCarthy is not a partisan in discussing this topic is not accurate. I don't even have an opinion on the content, haven't read this one yet, but I objected to the presentation of him in this situation as some detached, non-partisan observer. He's not.
GH, I agree that the hypocrisy of the US complaining about election interference is pretty rank. I do think there's something to the idea that its perceived importance is higher than it would be otherwise because the beneficiary appears to be somewhere between grateful to receive it and active in obtaining it. Whatever the reality is, Trump's hesitation to work to prevent it in the future magnifies the issue. What exactly is "the issue" to you? The issue is that our president isn't working to defend our country against hostile nations. If Russia hacked things, but Clinton won anyways and set out to improve cyber security and sanctioned Russia, then I wouldn't be so worried about Russian hacking. The government would be taking care of the problem or at least trying. If Donald Trump would enforce the sanctions that congress passed, I'd feel a little better. If he'd quit calling it fake news and actually tried to improve cyber security in response, then I'd feel a little better. Instead, it certainly seems like he has encouraged it and possibly been complicit in it. It helps him win and that's the only thing he cares about and many Republicans have gone along with it. Party over country. That concerns me and it's completely unacceptable. That we influence the elections in other countries is immaterial to this issue. Those countries should boost their security and/or sanction the US (probably wouldn't work out for them, advantage of being the US). We live in a country that can do something about foreign powers meddling in our elections. We should do something about it. Are you really saying that the US should punish those that imitate our behavior but our behavior is immaterial to the issue of other countries responding in kind? I also have to ask, did you read the legislative solution Democrats presumably would have passed under Clinton? It was piss poor and the whole "I would have felt a little better" is part of how they keep the game going. Like the war on drugs "at least made people feel a little better" without remotely addressing the issues, it's long been my contention that what Ren is saying is too true. That had Clinton won and congress made some superficial moves it wouldn't be nearly the issue it's been even though the core problems that led to the interference and any effectiveness it had would remain unaddressed and wouldn't even be on your minds.
Oh, get off your high horse. He is indeed saying that because the US is a big powerful country they get to fuck with other nations and don't have to accept that other nations fuck back with them. Isn't that one of the main advantages of being a big powerful nation?
Being the biggest, strongest kid on the schoolground you "get" to bully the other kids around without accepting that anybody bullies you back. Of course, the other kids won't be very happy with you bullying them, and what they do about it is up to them. Whether you think it's morally just for the big kid to bully the other kids does not really factor into your capability. I agree with you that you *should* refrain from bullying the other kids around despite being able to. But the fact that you currently are (still) the biggest bully in the schoolyard, but Russia (a comparatively terribly scrawny kid) just punched you in the face and you didn't even parry his blow, let alone hit back, and are projecting to the schoolyard that you won't actually try to do anything to stop Russia and they are free to keep punching you in the face is pretty bad.
|
On February 26 2018 20:48 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2018 20:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2018 16:06 CatharsisUT wrote:
Russian interference in US elections. So if we switched to US interference in Russian election, that to you isn't a part of 'the issue'? On February 26 2018 18:29 RenSC2 wrote:On February 26 2018 15:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2018 14:46 CatharsisUT wrote:
Well, I'm impressed that I have displayed an "obsession" in one post - it seemed relevant to demonstrate that the idea that McCarthy is not a partisan in discussing this topic is not accurate. I don't even have an opinion on the content, haven't read this one yet, but I objected to the presentation of him in this situation as some detached, non-partisan observer. He's not.
GH, I agree that the hypocrisy of the US complaining about election interference is pretty rank. I do think there's something to the idea that its perceived importance is higher than it would be otherwise because the beneficiary appears to be somewhere between grateful to receive it and active in obtaining it. Whatever the reality is, Trump's hesitation to work to prevent it in the future magnifies the issue. What exactly is "the issue" to you? The issue is that our president isn't working to defend our country against hostile nations. If Russia hacked things, but Clinton won anyways and set out to improve cyber security and sanctioned Russia, then I wouldn't be so worried about Russian hacking. The government would be taking care of the problem or at least trying. If Donald Trump would enforce the sanctions that congress passed, I'd feel a little better. If he'd quit calling it fake news and actually tried to improve cyber security in response, then I'd feel a little better. Instead, it certainly seems like he has encouraged it and possibly been complicit in it. It helps him win and that's the only thing he cares about and many Republicans have gone along with it. Party over country. That concerns me and it's completely unacceptable. That we influence the elections in other countries is immaterial to this issue. Those countries should boost their security and/or sanction the US (probably wouldn't work out for them, advantage of being the US). We live in a country that can do something about foreign powers meddling in our elections. We should do something about it. Are you really saying that the US should punish those that imitate our behavior but our behavior is immaterial to the issue of other countries responding in kind? I also have to ask, did you read the legislative solution Democrats presumably would have passed under Clinton? It was piss poor and the whole "I would have felt a little better" is part of how they keep the game going. Like the war on drugs "at least made people feel a little better" without remotely addressing the issues, it's long been my contention that what Ren is saying is too true. That had Clinton won and congress made some superficial moves it wouldn't be nearly the issue it's been even though the core problems that led to the interference and any effectiveness it had would remain unaddressed and wouldn't even be on your minds. Oh, get off your high horse. He is indeed saying that because the US is a big powerful country they get to fuck with other nations and don't have to accept that other nations fuck back with them. Isn't that one of the main advantages of being a big powerful nation? Being the biggest, strongest kid on the schoolground you "get" to bully the other kids around without accepting that anybody bullies you back. Of course, the other kids won't be very happy with you bullying them, and what they do about it is up to them. Whether you think it's morally just for the big kid to bully the other kids does not really factor into your capability. I agree with you that you *should* refrain from bullying the other kids around despite being able to. But the fact that you currently are (still) the biggest bully in the schoolyard, but Russia (a comparatively terribly scrawny kid) just punched you in the face and you didn't even parry his blow, let alone hit back, and are projecting to the schoolyard that you won't actually try to do anything to stop Russia and they are free to keep punching you in the face is pretty bad.
If 90's movies taught me anything standing up to the bully is the honorable action and the bully is supposed to see the error of their ways. Not double down and prove they are in fact the most powerful and ruthless kid on the playground.
I mean if the position of liberals is that the US is a bully and we'll lose bully cred I can at least see that as honest, even if I disagree about it being an appropriate plan of action.
|
On February 26 2018 20:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2018 20:48 Acrofales wrote:On February 26 2018 20:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2018 16:06 CatharsisUT wrote:
Russian interference in US elections. So if we switched to US interference in Russian election, that to you isn't a part of 'the issue'? On February 26 2018 18:29 RenSC2 wrote:On February 26 2018 15:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2018 14:46 CatharsisUT wrote:
Well, I'm impressed that I have displayed an "obsession" in one post - it seemed relevant to demonstrate that the idea that McCarthy is not a partisan in discussing this topic is not accurate. I don't even have an opinion on the content, haven't read this one yet, but I objected to the presentation of him in this situation as some detached, non-partisan observer. He's not.
GH, I agree that the hypocrisy of the US complaining about election interference is pretty rank. I do think there's something to the idea that its perceived importance is higher than it would be otherwise because the beneficiary appears to be somewhere between grateful to receive it and active in obtaining it. Whatever the reality is, Trump's hesitation to work to prevent it in the future magnifies the issue. What exactly is "the issue" to you? The issue is that our president isn't working to defend our country against hostile nations. If Russia hacked things, but Clinton won anyways and set out to improve cyber security and sanctioned Russia, then I wouldn't be so worried about Russian hacking. The government would be taking care of the problem or at least trying. If Donald Trump would enforce the sanctions that congress passed, I'd feel a little better. If he'd quit calling it fake news and actually tried to improve cyber security in response, then I'd feel a little better. Instead, it certainly seems like he has encouraged it and possibly been complicit in it. It helps him win and that's the only thing he cares about and many Republicans have gone along with it. Party over country. That concerns me and it's completely unacceptable. That we influence the elections in other countries is immaterial to this issue. Those countries should boost their security and/or sanction the US (probably wouldn't work out for them, advantage of being the US). We live in a country that can do something about foreign powers meddling in our elections. We should do something about it. Are you really saying that the US should punish those that imitate our behavior but our behavior is immaterial to the issue of other countries responding in kind? I also have to ask, did you read the legislative solution Democrats presumably would have passed under Clinton? It was piss poor and the whole "I would have felt a little better" is part of how they keep the game going. Like the war on drugs "at least made people feel a little better" without remotely addressing the issues, it's long been my contention that what Ren is saying is too true. That had Clinton won and congress made some superficial moves it wouldn't be nearly the issue it's been even though the core problems that led to the interference and any effectiveness it had would remain unaddressed and wouldn't even be on your minds. Oh, get off your high horse. He is indeed saying that because the US is a big powerful country they get to fuck with other nations and don't have to accept that other nations fuck back with them. Isn't that one of the main advantages of being a big powerful nation? Being the biggest, strongest kid on the schoolground you "get" to bully the other kids around without accepting that anybody bullies you back. Of course, the other kids won't be very happy with you bullying them, and what they do about it is up to them. Whether you think it's morally just for the big kid to bully the other kids does not really factor into your capability. I agree with you that you *should* refrain from bullying the other kids around despite being able to. But the fact that you currently are (still) the biggest bully in the schoolyard, but Russia (a comparatively terribly scrawny kid) just punched you in the face and you didn't even parry his blow, let alone hit back, and are projecting to the schoolyard that you won't actually try to do anything to stop Russia and they are free to keep punching you in the face is pretty bad. If 90's movies taught me anything standing up to the bully is the honorable action and the bully is supposed to see the error of their ways. Not double down and prove they are in fact the most powerful and ruthless kid on the playground. I mean if the position of liberals is that the US is a bully and we'll lose bully cred I can at least see that as honest, even if I disagree about it being an appropriate plan of action.
I don't know what 90s movies you watched, but standing up the bullies in the movies I watched didn't involve trying to be a bigger bully... but the fact that you are referring to 90s movies as your source of morality tells me enough 
Also, you seem to be mixed up about what people wish could happen in an ideal world and what people think should happen right now. A common issue for you, because you believe they are one and the same. Many people here are quite happy with a dose of realpolitik though.
|
I think the posting is that the USA is basically giving up its role in global leadership.
It's not just about how the Russians seem to basically so what they want, it's also about stuff like how at the winder Olympics Mike pence just showed up to sulk, and let the two Koreas take the publicity.
There are no friends in global diplomacy, only interests. The school yard analogy is wrong because countries do not act like human kids in a school yard. Instead the point of diplomacy is to protect your interests.
Right now it looks like the US is just setting its interests on fire
|
On February 26 2018 20:59 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2018 20:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2018 20:48 Acrofales wrote:On February 26 2018 20:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2018 16:06 CatharsisUT wrote:
Russian interference in US elections. So if we switched to US interference in Russian election, that to you isn't a part of 'the issue'? On February 26 2018 18:29 RenSC2 wrote:On February 26 2018 15:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2018 14:46 CatharsisUT wrote:
Well, I'm impressed that I have displayed an "obsession" in one post - it seemed relevant to demonstrate that the idea that McCarthy is not a partisan in discussing this topic is not accurate. I don't even have an opinion on the content, haven't read this one yet, but I objected to the presentation of him in this situation as some detached, non-partisan observer. He's not.
GH, I agree that the hypocrisy of the US complaining about election interference is pretty rank. I do think there's something to the idea that its perceived importance is higher than it would be otherwise because the beneficiary appears to be somewhere between grateful to receive it and active in obtaining it. Whatever the reality is, Trump's hesitation to work to prevent it in the future magnifies the issue. What exactly is "the issue" to you? The issue is that our president isn't working to defend our country against hostile nations. If Russia hacked things, but Clinton won anyways and set out to improve cyber security and sanctioned Russia, then I wouldn't be so worried about Russian hacking. The government would be taking care of the problem or at least trying. If Donald Trump would enforce the sanctions that congress passed, I'd feel a little better. If he'd quit calling it fake news and actually tried to improve cyber security in response, then I'd feel a little better. Instead, it certainly seems like he has encouraged it and possibly been complicit in it. It helps him win and that's the only thing he cares about and many Republicans have gone along with it. Party over country. That concerns me and it's completely unacceptable. That we influence the elections in other countries is immaterial to this issue. Those countries should boost their security and/or sanction the US (probably wouldn't work out for them, advantage of being the US). We live in a country that can do something about foreign powers meddling in our elections. We should do something about it. Are you really saying that the US should punish those that imitate our behavior but our behavior is immaterial to the issue of other countries responding in kind? I also have to ask, did you read the legislative solution Democrats presumably would have passed under Clinton? It was piss poor and the whole "I would have felt a little better" is part of how they keep the game going. Like the war on drugs "at least made people feel a little better" without remotely addressing the issues, it's long been my contention that what Ren is saying is too true. That had Clinton won and congress made some superficial moves it wouldn't be nearly the issue it's been even though the core problems that led to the interference and any effectiveness it had would remain unaddressed and wouldn't even be on your minds. Oh, get off your high horse. He is indeed saying that because the US is a big powerful country they get to fuck with other nations and don't have to accept that other nations fuck back with them. Isn't that one of the main advantages of being a big powerful nation? Being the biggest, strongest kid on the schoolground you "get" to bully the other kids around without accepting that anybody bullies you back. Of course, the other kids won't be very happy with you bullying them, and what they do about it is up to them. Whether you think it's morally just for the big kid to bully the other kids does not really factor into your capability. I agree with you that you *should* refrain from bullying the other kids around despite being able to. But the fact that you currently are (still) the biggest bully in the schoolyard, but Russia (a comparatively terribly scrawny kid) just punched you in the face and you didn't even parry his blow, let alone hit back, and are projecting to the schoolyard that you won't actually try to do anything to stop Russia and they are free to keep punching you in the face is pretty bad. If 90's movies taught me anything standing up to the bully is the honorable action and the bully is supposed to see the error of their ways. Not double down and prove they are in fact the most powerful and ruthless kid on the playground. I mean if the position of liberals is that the US is a bully and we'll lose bully cred I can at least see that as honest, even if I disagree about it being an appropriate plan of action. I don't know what 90s movies you watched, but standing up the bullies in the movies I watched didn't involve trying to be a bigger bully... but the fact that you are referring to 90s movies as your source of morality tells me enough Also, you seem to be mixed up about what people wish could happen in an ideal world and what people think should happen right now. A common issue for you, because you believe they are one and the same. Many people here are quite happy with a dose of realpolitik though.
haha, I presume you know I was joking. But practically every "standing up to a bully" story is fighting back. The idea isn't that the 'scrawny kid Russia' is going to be the new global bully, but that the bully can't expect to be able to bully them without consequence (and encourages the bully to move on to more vulnerable prey).
The advice you're giving seems to equate to teaching the bully how to avoid those consequences and further show how futile resisting the bullying is.
Again, not something I agree with, but if that's what liberals are arguing that would at least be honest.
|
Estonia4505 Posts
On February 26 2018 21:05 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2018 20:59 Acrofales wrote:On February 26 2018 20:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2018 20:48 Acrofales wrote:On February 26 2018 20:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2018 16:06 CatharsisUT wrote:
Russian interference in US elections. So if we switched to US interference in Russian election, that to you isn't a part of 'the issue'? On February 26 2018 18:29 RenSC2 wrote:On February 26 2018 15:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2018 14:46 CatharsisUT wrote:
Well, I'm impressed that I have displayed an "obsession" in one post - it seemed relevant to demonstrate that the idea that McCarthy is not a partisan in discussing this topic is not accurate. I don't even have an opinion on the content, haven't read this one yet, but I objected to the presentation of him in this situation as some detached, non-partisan observer. He's not.
GH, I agree that the hypocrisy of the US complaining about election interference is pretty rank. I do think there's something to the idea that its perceived importance is higher than it would be otherwise because the beneficiary appears to be somewhere between grateful to receive it and active in obtaining it. Whatever the reality is, Trump's hesitation to work to prevent it in the future magnifies the issue. What exactly is "the issue" to you? The issue is that our president isn't working to defend our country against hostile nations. If Russia hacked things, but Clinton won anyways and set out to improve cyber security and sanctioned Russia, then I wouldn't be so worried about Russian hacking. The government would be taking care of the problem or at least trying. If Donald Trump would enforce the sanctions that congress passed, I'd feel a little better. If he'd quit calling it fake news and actually tried to improve cyber security in response, then I'd feel a little better. Instead, it certainly seems like he has encouraged it and possibly been complicit in it. It helps him win and that's the only thing he cares about and many Republicans have gone along with it. Party over country. That concerns me and it's completely unacceptable. That we influence the elections in other countries is immaterial to this issue. Those countries should boost their security and/or sanction the US (probably wouldn't work out for them, advantage of being the US). We live in a country that can do something about foreign powers meddling in our elections. We should do something about it. Are you really saying that the US should punish those that imitate our behavior but our behavior is immaterial to the issue of other countries responding in kind? I also have to ask, did you read the legislative solution Democrats presumably would have passed under Clinton? It was piss poor and the whole "I would have felt a little better" is part of how they keep the game going. Like the war on drugs "at least made people feel a little better" without remotely addressing the issues, it's long been my contention that what Ren is saying is too true. That had Clinton won and congress made some superficial moves it wouldn't be nearly the issue it's been even though the core problems that led to the interference and any effectiveness it had would remain unaddressed and wouldn't even be on your minds. Oh, get off your high horse. He is indeed saying that because the US is a big powerful country they get to fuck with other nations and don't have to accept that other nations fuck back with them. Isn't that one of the main advantages of being a big powerful nation? Being the biggest, strongest kid on the schoolground you "get" to bully the other kids around without accepting that anybody bullies you back. Of course, the other kids won't be very happy with you bullying them, and what they do about it is up to them. Whether you think it's morally just for the big kid to bully the other kids does not really factor into your capability. I agree with you that you *should* refrain from bullying the other kids around despite being able to. But the fact that you currently are (still) the biggest bully in the schoolyard, but Russia (a comparatively terribly scrawny kid) just punched you in the face and you didn't even parry his blow, let alone hit back, and are projecting to the schoolyard that you won't actually try to do anything to stop Russia and they are free to keep punching you in the face is pretty bad. If 90's movies taught me anything standing up to the bully is the honorable action and the bully is supposed to see the error of their ways. Not double down and prove they are in fact the most powerful and ruthless kid on the playground. I mean if the position of liberals is that the US is a bully and we'll lose bully cred I can at least see that as honest, even if I disagree about it being an appropriate plan of action. I don't know what 90s movies you watched, but standing up the bullies in the movies I watched didn't involve trying to be a bigger bully... but the fact that you are referring to 90s movies as your source of morality tells me enough Also, you seem to be mixed up about what people wish could happen in an ideal world and what people think should happen right now. A common issue for you, because you believe they are one and the same. Many people here are quite happy with a dose of realpolitik though. haha, I presume you know I was joking. But practically every "standing up to a bully" story is fighting back. The idea isn't that the 'scrawny kid Russia' is going to be the new global bully, but that the bully can't expect to be able to bully them without consequence (and encourages the bully to move on to more vulnerable prey). The advice you're giving seems to equate to teaching the bully how to avoid those consequences and further show how futile resisting the bullying is. Again, not something I agree with, but if that's what liberals are arguing that would at least be honest.
In this specific case, a notable portion of said "bullying" is promoting stuff like seperation of powers, not killing journalists or not rigging it's elections in pathetically obvious ways, such as 99% support ratings. Also, while invading countries is bad, invading democratic countries is worse. Election meddling can be at least justifiable, whereas orchestrating and promoting violence as Russia tried to do is not. As a person whose country has actually suffered from Russian neo-imperialism, your false equivalences and downplaying of a very real worldwide phenomenon that just now reached US shores seems short sighted at best, morally repugnant at worst.
|
On February 26 2018 22:08 mustaju wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2018 21:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2018 20:59 Acrofales wrote:On February 26 2018 20:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2018 20:48 Acrofales wrote:On February 26 2018 20:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2018 16:06 CatharsisUT wrote:
Russian interference in US elections. So if we switched to US interference in Russian election, that to you isn't a part of 'the issue'? On February 26 2018 18:29 RenSC2 wrote:On February 26 2018 15:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2018 14:46 CatharsisUT wrote:
Well, I'm impressed that I have displayed an "obsession" in one post - it seemed relevant to demonstrate that the idea that McCarthy is not a partisan in discussing this topic is not accurate. I don't even have an opinion on the content, haven't read this one yet, but I objected to the presentation of him in this situation as some detached, non-partisan observer. He's not.
GH, I agree that the hypocrisy of the US complaining about election interference is pretty rank. I do think there's something to the idea that its perceived importance is higher than it would be otherwise because the beneficiary appears to be somewhere between grateful to receive it and active in obtaining it. Whatever the reality is, Trump's hesitation to work to prevent it in the future magnifies the issue. What exactly is "the issue" to you? The issue is that our president isn't working to defend our country against hostile nations. If Russia hacked things, but Clinton won anyways and set out to improve cyber security and sanctioned Russia, then I wouldn't be so worried about Russian hacking. The government would be taking care of the problem or at least trying. If Donald Trump would enforce the sanctions that congress passed, I'd feel a little better. If he'd quit calling it fake news and actually tried to improve cyber security in response, then I'd feel a little better. Instead, it certainly seems like he has encouraged it and possibly been complicit in it. It helps him win and that's the only thing he cares about and many Republicans have gone along with it. Party over country. That concerns me and it's completely unacceptable. That we influence the elections in other countries is immaterial to this issue. Those countries should boost their security and/or sanction the US (probably wouldn't work out for them, advantage of being the US). We live in a country that can do something about foreign powers meddling in our elections. We should do something about it. Are you really saying that the US should punish those that imitate our behavior but our behavior is immaterial to the issue of other countries responding in kind? I also have to ask, did you read the legislative solution Democrats presumably would have passed under Clinton? It was piss poor and the whole "I would have felt a little better" is part of how they keep the game going. Like the war on drugs "at least made people feel a little better" without remotely addressing the issues, it's long been my contention that what Ren is saying is too true. That had Clinton won and congress made some superficial moves it wouldn't be nearly the issue it's been even though the core problems that led to the interference and any effectiveness it had would remain unaddressed and wouldn't even be on your minds. Oh, get off your high horse. He is indeed saying that because the US is a big powerful country they get to fuck with other nations and don't have to accept that other nations fuck back with them. Isn't that one of the main advantages of being a big powerful nation? Being the biggest, strongest kid on the schoolground you "get" to bully the other kids around without accepting that anybody bullies you back. Of course, the other kids won't be very happy with you bullying them, and what they do about it is up to them. Whether you think it's morally just for the big kid to bully the other kids does not really factor into your capability. I agree with you that you *should* refrain from bullying the other kids around despite being able to. But the fact that you currently are (still) the biggest bully in the schoolyard, but Russia (a comparatively terribly scrawny kid) just punched you in the face and you didn't even parry his blow, let alone hit back, and are projecting to the schoolyard that you won't actually try to do anything to stop Russia and they are free to keep punching you in the face is pretty bad. If 90's movies taught me anything standing up to the bully is the honorable action and the bully is supposed to see the error of their ways. Not double down and prove they are in fact the most powerful and ruthless kid on the playground. I mean if the position of liberals is that the US is a bully and we'll lose bully cred I can at least see that as honest, even if I disagree about it being an appropriate plan of action. I don't know what 90s movies you watched, but standing up the bullies in the movies I watched didn't involve trying to be a bigger bully... but the fact that you are referring to 90s movies as your source of morality tells me enough Also, you seem to be mixed up about what people wish could happen in an ideal world and what people think should happen right now. A common issue for you, because you believe they are one and the same. Many people here are quite happy with a dose of realpolitik though. haha, I presume you know I was joking. But practically every "standing up to a bully" story is fighting back. The idea isn't that the 'scrawny kid Russia' is going to be the new global bully, but that the bully can't expect to be able to bully them without consequence (and encourages the bully to move on to more vulnerable prey). The advice you're giving seems to equate to teaching the bully how to avoid those consequences and further show how futile resisting the bullying is. Again, not something I agree with, but if that's what liberals are arguing that would at least be honest. In this specific case, a notable portion of said "bullying" is promoting stuff like seperation of powers, not killing journalists or not rigging it's elections in pathetically obvious ways, such as 99% support ratings. Also, while invading countries is bad, invading democratic countries is worse. Election meddling can be at least justifiable, whereas orchestrating and promoting violence as Russia tried to do is not. As a person whose country has actually suffered from Russian neo-imperialism, your false equivalences and downplaying of a very real worldwide phenomenon that just now reached US shores seems short sighted at best, morally repugnant at worst.
I'm not entirely deaf to this argument, but I have to ask, do you think the US would be as oppositional to Putin's undemocratic practices if he was acting in US interests otherwise?
|
I’ll always love equivalences between a kleptocratic dictatorship ran from an iron hand by a guy who gets his opponent sent to Siberia, shot in front of the Kremlin or murdered in an atrocious way with polonium in foreign capitals, where the free media has virtually died and journalists get murdered or bullied into submission, and the United States.
No problem at all with the fact Putin is more or less openly trying to destroy the EU, and finances, coordinates and supports fascist parties accross the west. Marine Le Pen recognized the Crimea invasion at a two days interval of getting a huge loan from a Kremlin controlled bank.
Nothing to worry about folks, US and Russia, all the same.
I’m all for having a hard look at outselves and our foreign policy, but time to get real with Russia.
|
Estonia4505 Posts
On February 26 2018 22:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2018 22:08 mustaju wrote:On February 26 2018 21:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2018 20:59 Acrofales wrote:On February 26 2018 20:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2018 20:48 Acrofales wrote:On February 26 2018 20:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2018 16:06 CatharsisUT wrote:
Russian interference in US elections. So if we switched to US interference in Russian election, that to you isn't a part of 'the issue'? On February 26 2018 18:29 RenSC2 wrote:On February 26 2018 15:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2018 14:46 CatharsisUT wrote:
Well, I'm impressed that I have displayed an "obsession" in one post - it seemed relevant to demonstrate that the idea that McCarthy is not a partisan in discussing this topic is not accurate. I don't even have an opinion on the content, haven't read this one yet, but I objected to the presentation of him in this situation as some detached, non-partisan observer. He's not.
GH, I agree that the hypocrisy of the US complaining about election interference is pretty rank. I do think there's something to the idea that its perceived importance is higher than it would be otherwise because the beneficiary appears to be somewhere between grateful to receive it and active in obtaining it. Whatever the reality is, Trump's hesitation to work to prevent it in the future magnifies the issue. What exactly is "the issue" to you? The issue is that our president isn't working to defend our country against hostile nations. If Russia hacked things, but Clinton won anyways and set out to improve cyber security and sanctioned Russia, then I wouldn't be so worried about Russian hacking. The government would be taking care of the problem or at least trying. If Donald Trump would enforce the sanctions that congress passed, I'd feel a little better. If he'd quit calling it fake news and actually tried to improve cyber security in response, then I'd feel a little better. Instead, it certainly seems like he has encouraged it and possibly been complicit in it. It helps him win and that's the only thing he cares about and many Republicans have gone along with it. Party over country. That concerns me and it's completely unacceptable. That we influence the elections in other countries is immaterial to this issue. Those countries should boost their security and/or sanction the US (probably wouldn't work out for them, advantage of being the US). We live in a country that can do something about foreign powers meddling in our elections. We should do something about it. Are you really saying that the US should punish those that imitate our behavior but our behavior is immaterial to the issue of other countries responding in kind? I also have to ask, did you read the legislative solution Democrats presumably would have passed under Clinton? It was piss poor and the whole "I would have felt a little better" is part of how they keep the game going. Like the war on drugs "at least made people feel a little better" without remotely addressing the issues, it's long been my contention that what Ren is saying is too true. That had Clinton won and congress made some superficial moves it wouldn't be nearly the issue it's been even though the core problems that led to the interference and any effectiveness it had would remain unaddressed and wouldn't even be on your minds. Oh, get off your high horse. He is indeed saying that because the US is a big powerful country they get to fuck with other nations and don't have to accept that other nations fuck back with them. Isn't that one of the main advantages of being a big powerful nation? Being the biggest, strongest kid on the schoolground you "get" to bully the other kids around without accepting that anybody bullies you back. Of course, the other kids won't be very happy with you bullying them, and what they do about it is up to them. Whether you think it's morally just for the big kid to bully the other kids does not really factor into your capability. I agree with you that you *should* refrain from bullying the other kids around despite being able to. But the fact that you currently are (still) the biggest bully in the schoolyard, but Russia (a comparatively terribly scrawny kid) just punched you in the face and you didn't even parry his blow, let alone hit back, and are projecting to the schoolyard that you won't actually try to do anything to stop Russia and they are free to keep punching you in the face is pretty bad. If 90's movies taught me anything standing up to the bully is the honorable action and the bully is supposed to see the error of their ways. Not double down and prove they are in fact the most powerful and ruthless kid on the playground. I mean if the position of liberals is that the US is a bully and we'll lose bully cred I can at least see that as honest, even if I disagree about it being an appropriate plan of action. I don't know what 90s movies you watched, but standing up the bullies in the movies I watched didn't involve trying to be a bigger bully... but the fact that you are referring to 90s movies as your source of morality tells me enough Also, you seem to be mixed up about what people wish could happen in an ideal world and what people think should happen right now. A common issue for you, because you believe they are one and the same. Many people here are quite happy with a dose of realpolitik though. haha, I presume you know I was joking. But practically every "standing up to a bully" story is fighting back. The idea isn't that the 'scrawny kid Russia' is going to be the new global bully, but that the bully can't expect to be able to bully them without consequence (and encourages the bully to move on to more vulnerable prey). The advice you're giving seems to equate to teaching the bully how to avoid those consequences and further show how futile resisting the bullying is. Again, not something I agree with, but if that's what liberals are arguing that would at least be honest. In this specific case, a notable portion of said "bullying" is promoting stuff like seperation of powers, not killing journalists or not rigging it's elections in pathetically obvious ways, such as 99% support ratings. Also, while invading countries is bad, invading democratic countries is worse. Election meddling can be at least justifiable, whereas orchestrating and promoting violence as Russia tried to do is not. As a person whose country has actually suffered from Russian neo-imperialism, your false equivalences and downplaying of a very real worldwide phenomenon that just now reached US shores seems short sighted at best, morally repugnant at worst. I'm not entirely deaf to this argument, but I have to ask, do you think the US would be as oppositional to Putin's undemocratic practices if he was acting in US interests otherwise?
Would and should are 2 entirely seperate categories. The US can afford to be oppositional to Russia, and I would argue that it should, from a very biased perspective, that inaction with a nuclear state means that the negative progress Russia makes is far harder to reverse than say the one of Saudi Arabia, if the US would transition out of oil. It is also hard to see any nation as more potentially dangerous to democratic norms than Russia at the moment, seeing it's rise of neonazi parties and overall attitude towards other nations.
|
On February 26 2018 22:21 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I’ll always love equivalences between a kleptocratic dictatorship ran from an iron hand by a guy who gets his opponent sent to Siberia, shot in front of the Kremlin or murdered in an atrocious way with polonium in foreign capitals, where the free media has virtually died and journalists get murdered or bullied into submission, and the United States.
No problem at all with the fact Putin is more or less openly trying to destroy the EU, and finances, coordinates and supports fascist parties accross the west. Marine Le Pen recognized the Crimea invasion at a two days interval of getting a huge loan from a Kremlin controlled bank.
Nothing to worry about folks, US and Russia, all the same.
I’m all for having a hard look at outselves and our foreign policy, but time to get real with Russia.
What equivalencies do you see me drawing so far? If you could quote them it would help me understand your perspective.
You seem to clearly have created an argument I didn't make with:
No problem at all with the fact Putin is more or less openly trying to destroy the EU, and finances, coordinates and supports fascist parties accross the west. Marine Le Pen recognized the Crimea invasion at a two days interval of getting a huge loan from a Kremlin controlled bank.
But calling for introspection is progress in my book.
On February 26 2018 22:24 mustaju wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2018 22:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2018 22:08 mustaju wrote:On February 26 2018 21:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2018 20:59 Acrofales wrote:On February 26 2018 20:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2018 20:48 Acrofales wrote:On February 26 2018 20:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2018 16:06 CatharsisUT wrote:
Russian interference in US elections. So if we switched to US interference in Russian election, that to you isn't a part of 'the issue'? On February 26 2018 18:29 RenSC2 wrote:On February 26 2018 15:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
What exactly is "the issue" to you? The issue is that our president isn't working to defend our country against hostile nations. If Russia hacked things, but Clinton won anyways and set out to improve cyber security and sanctioned Russia, then I wouldn't be so worried about Russian hacking. The government would be taking care of the problem or at least trying. If Donald Trump would enforce the sanctions that congress passed, I'd feel a little better. If he'd quit calling it fake news and actually tried to improve cyber security in response, then I'd feel a little better. Instead, it certainly seems like he has encouraged it and possibly been complicit in it. It helps him win and that's the only thing he cares about and many Republicans have gone along with it. Party over country. That concerns me and it's completely unacceptable. That we influence the elections in other countries is immaterial to this issue. Those countries should boost their security and/or sanction the US (probably wouldn't work out for them, advantage of being the US). We live in a country that can do something about foreign powers meddling in our elections. We should do something about it. Are you really saying that the US should punish those that imitate our behavior but our behavior is immaterial to the issue of other countries responding in kind? I also have to ask, did you read the legislative solution Democrats presumably would have passed under Clinton? It was piss poor and the whole "I would have felt a little better" is part of how they keep the game going. Like the war on drugs "at least made people feel a little better" without remotely addressing the issues, it's long been my contention that what Ren is saying is too true. That had Clinton won and congress made some superficial moves it wouldn't be nearly the issue it's been even though the core problems that led to the interference and any effectiveness it had would remain unaddressed and wouldn't even be on your minds. Oh, get off your high horse. He is indeed saying that because the US is a big powerful country they get to fuck with other nations and don't have to accept that other nations fuck back with them. Isn't that one of the main advantages of being a big powerful nation? Being the biggest, strongest kid on the schoolground you "get" to bully the other kids around without accepting that anybody bullies you back. Of course, the other kids won't be very happy with you bullying them, and what they do about it is up to them. Whether you think it's morally just for the big kid to bully the other kids does not really factor into your capability. I agree with you that you *should* refrain from bullying the other kids around despite being able to. But the fact that you currently are (still) the biggest bully in the schoolyard, but Russia (a comparatively terribly scrawny kid) just punched you in the face and you didn't even parry his blow, let alone hit back, and are projecting to the schoolyard that you won't actually try to do anything to stop Russia and they are free to keep punching you in the face is pretty bad. If 90's movies taught me anything standing up to the bully is the honorable action and the bully is supposed to see the error of their ways. Not double down and prove they are in fact the most powerful and ruthless kid on the playground. I mean if the position of liberals is that the US is a bully and we'll lose bully cred I can at least see that as honest, even if I disagree about it being an appropriate plan of action. I don't know what 90s movies you watched, but standing up the bullies in the movies I watched didn't involve trying to be a bigger bully... but the fact that you are referring to 90s movies as your source of morality tells me enough Also, you seem to be mixed up about what people wish could happen in an ideal world and what people think should happen right now. A common issue for you, because you believe they are one and the same. Many people here are quite happy with a dose of realpolitik though. haha, I presume you know I was joking. But practically every "standing up to a bully" story is fighting back. The idea isn't that the 'scrawny kid Russia' is going to be the new global bully, but that the bully can't expect to be able to bully them without consequence (and encourages the bully to move on to more vulnerable prey). The advice you're giving seems to equate to teaching the bully how to avoid those consequences and further show how futile resisting the bullying is. Again, not something I agree with, but if that's what liberals are arguing that would at least be honest. In this specific case, a notable portion of said "bullying" is promoting stuff like seperation of powers, not killing journalists or not rigging it's elections in pathetically obvious ways, such as 99% support ratings. Also, while invading countries is bad, invading democratic countries is worse. Election meddling can be at least justifiable, whereas orchestrating and promoting violence as Russia tried to do is not. As a person whose country has actually suffered from Russian neo-imperialism, your false equivalences and downplaying of a very real worldwide phenomenon that just now reached US shores seems short sighted at best, morally repugnant at worst. I'm not entirely deaf to this argument, but I have to ask, do you think the US would be as oppositional to Putin's undemocratic practices if he was acting in US interests otherwise? Would and should are 2 entirely seperate categories. The US can afford to be oppositional to Russia, and I would argue that it should, from a very biased perspective, that inaction with a nuclear state means that the negative progress Russia makes is far harder to reverse than say the one of Saudi Arabia, if the US would transition out of oil. It is also hard to see any nation as more potentially dangerous to democratic norms than Russia at the moment, seeing it's rise of neonazi parties and overall attitude towards other nations.
Well seems like we're getting somewhere a bit.
I'd argue we're the biggest threat to democratic norms for a lot of reasons but that's a tangential argument for the moment.
So your contention is that it is in the interest of protecting ideals of democratic norms that we make the sophie's choice in supporting anti-democratic regimes like Saudi Arabia while opposing them in Russia, not the economic motivators?
|
Isn't Russian democracy largely a fiction at this point anyway? They've got the whole "managed democracy" deal where all the political parties take orders from the propaganda wing of the government, no?
Not to say that the US has never been guilty of election interference it shouldn't have done, but interfering in a situation like that doesn't seem especially comparable.
|
Yes. Russia’s elections will always end in the same result. That Putin and the people who support him will remain in power.
And the US is guilty of election interference in the past. That does not mean that we are obligated to endure it when other nations do it to us.
|
Behind this conversation is the biggest problem with moral clarity. When you are allowed to do things that you would totally criticize your opponents for doing, and you get to do them because it's just accepted that you're morally superior to your opponent, there's really no argument that you're being hypocritical. You can ignore it though, I hear it works well. We do that a lot on many subjects.
Presumably we all agree that interfering in the politics/elections of other countries in the hope of getting profit for yourself is bad. I'm comfortable with criticizing Russia for having done it in that case, but my comfort is backed by the fact that I've also criticized the UK and the US for having done that a zillion times in the past. I understand the willingness to remind others that these other occurrences do, in fact, happen, cause there seems to be an uneven application of the principle there. I also understand the argument that we shouldn't lose track of the fact that what Russia did is criticizable.
The thing is, I don't really believe anyone has lost track of that fact. From where I stand it feels more like a defense of moral clarity, in which applying principles evenly is criticized as giving Russia a pass. I don't think that's the case, and I think this view is ultimately harmful.
|
On February 26 2018 22:54 Nebuchad wrote:
Behind this conversation is the biggest problem with moral clarity. When you are allowed to do things that you would totally criticize your opponents for doing, and you get to do them because it's just accepted that you're morally superior to your opponent, there's really no argument that you're being hypocritical. You can ignore it though, I hear it works well. We do that a lot on many subjects.
Presumably we all agree that interfering in the politics/elections of other countries in the hope of getting profit for yourself is bad. I'm comfortable with criticizing Russia for having done it in that case, but my comfort is backed by the fact that I've also criticized the UK and the US for having done that a zillion times in the past. I understand the willingness to remind others that these other occurrences do, in fact, happen, cause there seems to be an uneven application of the principle there. I also understand the argument that we shouldn't lose track of the fact that what Russia did is criticizable.
The thing is, I don't really believe anyone has lost track of that fact. From where I stand it feels more like a defense of moral clarity, in which applying principles evenly is criticized as giving Russia a pass. I don't think that's the case, and I think this view is ultimately harmful.
While I feel slightly compelled to point out the role The Iron Bank Switzerland plays in all this, I'm inclined to focus on the more topical/relevant agreeing with my larger point part of this post. Most importantly imo, the last paragraph, for the sake of clarity of my position.
|
Estonia4505 Posts
On February 26 2018 22:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2018 22:21 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I’ll always love equivalences between a kleptocratic dictatorship ran from an iron hand by a guy who gets his opponent sent to Siberia, shot in front of the Kremlin or murdered in an atrocious way with polonium in foreign capitals, where the free media has virtually died and journalists get murdered or bullied into submission, and the United States.
No problem at all with the fact Putin is more or less openly trying to destroy the EU, and finances, coordinates and supports fascist parties accross the west. Marine Le Pen recognized the Crimea invasion at a two days interval of getting a huge loan from a Kremlin controlled bank.
Nothing to worry about folks, US and Russia, all the same.
I’m all for having a hard look at outselves and our foreign policy, but time to get real with Russia. What equivalencies do you see me drawing so far? If you could quote them it would help me understand your perspective. You seem to clearly have created an argument I didn't make with: Show nested quote +No problem at all with the fact Putin is more or less openly trying to destroy the EU, and finances, coordinates and supports fascist parties accross the west. Marine Le Pen recognized the Crimea invasion at a two days interval of getting a huge loan from a Kremlin controlled bank. But calling for introspection is progress in my book. Show nested quote +On February 26 2018 22:24 mustaju wrote:On February 26 2018 22:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2018 22:08 mustaju wrote:On February 26 2018 21:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2018 20:59 Acrofales wrote:On February 26 2018 20:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2018 20:48 Acrofales wrote:On February 26 2018 20:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2018 16:06 CatharsisUT wrote:
Russian interference in US elections. So if we switched to US interference in Russian election, that to you isn't a part of 'the issue'? On February 26 2018 18:29 RenSC2 wrote:
[quote]
The issue is that our president isn't working to defend our country against hostile nations. If Russia hacked things, but Clinton won anyways and set out to improve cyber security and sanctioned Russia, then I wouldn't be so worried about Russian hacking. The government would be taking care of the problem or at least trying.
If Donald Trump would enforce the sanctions that congress passed, I'd feel a little better. If he'd quit calling it fake news and actually tried to improve cyber security in response, then I'd feel a little better. Instead, it certainly seems like he has encouraged it and possibly been complicit in it. It helps him win and that's the only thing he cares about and many Republicans have gone along with it. Party over country. That concerns me and it's completely unacceptable.
That we influence the elections in other countries is immaterial to this issue. Those countries should boost their security and/or sanction the US (probably wouldn't work out for them, advantage of being the US). We live in a country that can do something about foreign powers meddling in our elections. We should do something about it. Are you really saying that the US should punish those that imitate our behavior but our behavior is immaterial to the issue of other countries responding in kind? I also have to ask, did you read the legislative solution Democrats presumably would have passed under Clinton? It was piss poor and the whole "I would have felt a little better" is part of how they keep the game going. Like the war on drugs "at least made people feel a little better" without remotely addressing the issues, it's long been my contention that what Ren is saying is too true. That had Clinton won and congress made some superficial moves it wouldn't be nearly the issue it's been even though the core problems that led to the interference and any effectiveness it had would remain unaddressed and wouldn't even be on your minds. Oh, get off your high horse. He is indeed saying that because the US is a big powerful country they get to fuck with other nations and don't have to accept that other nations fuck back with them. Isn't that one of the main advantages of being a big powerful nation? Being the biggest, strongest kid on the schoolground you "get" to bully the other kids around without accepting that anybody bullies you back. Of course, the other kids won't be very happy with you bullying them, and what they do about it is up to them. Whether you think it's morally just for the big kid to bully the other kids does not really factor into your capability. I agree with you that you *should* refrain from bullying the other kids around despite being able to. But the fact that you currently are (still) the biggest bully in the schoolyard, but Russia (a comparatively terribly scrawny kid) just punched you in the face and you didn't even parry his blow, let alone hit back, and are projecting to the schoolyard that you won't actually try to do anything to stop Russia and they are free to keep punching you in the face is pretty bad. If 90's movies taught me anything standing up to the bully is the honorable action and the bully is supposed to see the error of their ways. Not double down and prove they are in fact the most powerful and ruthless kid on the playground. I mean if the position of liberals is that the US is a bully and we'll lose bully cred I can at least see that as honest, even if I disagree about it being an appropriate plan of action. I don't know what 90s movies you watched, but standing up the bullies in the movies I watched didn't involve trying to be a bigger bully... but the fact that you are referring to 90s movies as your source of morality tells me enough Also, you seem to be mixed up about what people wish could happen in an ideal world and what people think should happen right now. A common issue for you, because you believe they are one and the same. Many people here are quite happy with a dose of realpolitik though. haha, I presume you know I was joking. But practically every "standing up to a bully" story is fighting back. The idea isn't that the 'scrawny kid Russia' is going to be the new global bully, but that the bully can't expect to be able to bully them without consequence (and encourages the bully to move on to more vulnerable prey). The advice you're giving seems to equate to teaching the bully how to avoid those consequences and further show how futile resisting the bullying is. Again, not something I agree with, but if that's what liberals are arguing that would at least be honest. In this specific case, a notable portion of said "bullying" is promoting stuff like seperation of powers, not killing journalists or not rigging it's elections in pathetically obvious ways, such as 99% support ratings. Also, while invading countries is bad, invading democratic countries is worse. Election meddling can be at least justifiable, whereas orchestrating and promoting violence as Russia tried to do is not. As a person whose country has actually suffered from Russian neo-imperialism, your false equivalences and downplaying of a very real worldwide phenomenon that just now reached US shores seems short sighted at best, morally repugnant at worst. I'm not entirely deaf to this argument, but I have to ask, do you think the US would be as oppositional to Putin's undemocratic practices if he was acting in US interests otherwise? Would and should are 2 entirely seperate categories. The US can afford to be oppositional to Russia, and I would argue that it should, from a very biased perspective, that inaction with a nuclear state means that the negative progress Russia makes is far harder to reverse than say the one of Saudi Arabia, if the US would transition out of oil. It is also hard to see any nation as more potentially dangerous to democratic norms than Russia at the moment, seeing it's rise of neonazi parties and overall attitude towards other nations. Well seems like we're getting somewhere a bit. I'd argue we're the biggest threat to democratic norms for a lot of reasons but that's a tangential argument for the moment. So your contention is that it is in the interest of protecting ideals of democratic norms that we make the sophie's choice in supporting anti-democratic regimes like Saudi Arabia while opposing them in Russia, not the economic motivators?
Economy plays a large role in supporting liberal democracy, in my opinion. One cannot have liberal democracy without certain economic conditions being fulfilled. Economy determines what you can and cannot do. So do power relations and regional layouts, as well as political capital, opportunity costs, and soft power. I would argue that since countries near Russia have made democratic transitions, one should assist them in such ventures and promote liberal democratic norms, as the political capital in these regions is rapidly eroding. The short term motivator of immediate financial gain is used to gain political capital within the US, in order to achieve more things within the country.
One can reasonably argue that my calculations are off, but most people who wants to achieve something in politics have to take a broader view than just narrow economic gain, in my opinion.
|
Do people really equate the "meddling" we do with what Russia did here? The world is not that black and white. It's one thing for us to covertly work on getting someone elected in a developing country. It's quite something else to have a Russian puppet installed as President of the most powerful nation on Earth and turning 30% of the citizenry against the other 70%. Destabilizing the United States is a horrible idea for the entire world, as we are seeing day in and day out as Trump continues to fuck everything up and piss everyone off.
|
Arguably the US meddling was way worse. Last i checked Russia didn't do a coup in the US. It just spilled some fuel into your elections and you gladly lit everything on fire.
|
On February 26 2018 23:39 Ayaz2810 wrote:
Do people really equate the "meddling" we do with what Russia did here? The world is not that black and white. It's one thing for us to covertly work on getting someone elected in a developing country. It's quite something else to have a Russian puppet installed as President of the most powerful nation on Earth and turning 30% of the citizenry against the other 70%. Destabilizing the United States is a horrible idea for the entire world, as we are seeing day in and day out as Trump continues to fuck everything up and piss everyone off.
Your description of "it's one thing" and "it's quite something else" are actually fairly similar in nature, it's just your tone that has changed.
I would argue that on this topic it's actually fairly black and white, and that what you mean is "we're not white either and I'd like not to take that into account."
|
It is hard to tell the exact impact of Russia’s efforts. But we do not want other nations to start trying and amplify the noise. Even if it never truly turns the tide of an election, it does impact our ability to govern our own nation and fine some sort of homogeneity with our fellow citizens.
On February 26 2018 23:47 Velr wrote:
Arguably the US meddling was way worse. Last i checked Russia didn't do a coup in the US. It just spilled some fuel into your elections and you gladly lit everything on fire.
But if they could, they would. Our past efforts were more successful in the past. But Russian efforts were also successful during the cold war.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
