Its almost like they wanted a dictator to look up to…(did I type that 
)
2 Likes
Well, no. Saying something should be expected isn’t the same thing as saying it’s justified. I’d much prefer that, outside of mutually beneficial, consenting agreements, countries left each other alone.
I’m saying we have no right to anger when we are guilty of the same and more. It’s hypocrisy. It’s saying what’s good for me is not good for thee. If being a patriot means being a hypocrite then, no, I’m not a patriot.
French uses a generalized example that has no nuance, i.e. why are we bombing? If we are bombing in retaliation or defense, that’s a-ok. If we are bombing as an unprovoked aggressor, that’s a different story, isn’t it? In the case of the latter, would we have any right to be angry if we get bombed back? Notice I said would we have any right to be angry, not would we be angry. I assume French means the former, though. If that’s the case, it becomes an apples to oranges comparison. A category error.
What it is for others, I don’t care. For me, it’s not a talking point. It’s reality. Do I want other countries meddling in our affairs? Nope. Can I muster up some sense of outrage when others countries do to us what we have been doing worldwide for decades? Nope. My response is, get better at the game or stop playing it. Of course, I have no hopes of getting better at the game over the next two years. I’m not defending Trump. Familiars from the old board know I have no love for him.
Who said anything about “letting” anyone do anything?
Indeed. It seems like the natural progression for the minds of people who have had their thoughts shaped by decades of engaged confirmation bias from the likes of Rush or our gracious host. The innate need for a strongman to tell them how to think, being elevated to the highest office in the land, makes perfect sense in their mental state.
I don’t judge America, as the world’s lone superpower, working to influence an agenda that is most beneficial for both us and the rest of the world, as being hypocritical, should a hostile foreign enemy take an in-kind approach. I view it as our humble and sober responsibility, to maintain global order. Further, what Putin and Russia did, far exceeds anything that has been suggested in the past being done.
Ah, I see what you mean now. Thanks.
I’d say the limitations imposed by Twitter’s character count prevents much nuance from being proposed.
What French posited though, was that we should just say, “Meh, no big deal” if WE are bombed by a hostile foreign government, seeing as how we have bombed others in the past. The comparison being that we were attacked by a hostile foreign government’s meddling in our election, therefore we should not find it a big deal seeing as how we have meddled in others elections too. Making it an apt comparison.
Two things:
-
I disagree that it’s America’s job to “maintain global order”. Neither do I think we have the right to determine for the world what is “beneficial”. That’s an astounding level of hubris. It’s my primary issue with American patriotism.
-
Even if I did agree, that doesn’t mean the end always justifies the mean. We, in the interest of pursuing “global order”, have contribute to a good bit of disorder and instability in a number of global regions. We have not always done what was best, we have not always done what was wisest, we have always done what is moral, and we certainly have not always succeeded. We can’t just dismiss our failures because of “intentions”. The road to hell and all that.
Perhaps that’s what he means. I’m fine with giving him the benefit of the doubt. My response is that I don’t think “meh, it’s no big deal”. My response is that international politics is like chess. Moves and countermoves. You have to respond appropriately to the opponents move. What I have no room for is emotional outrage when the opponent moves in similar fashion. Then again, I live on the low-end of the emotional scale, so maybe it’s a me problem. My response is to check-mate, but that doesn’t have to contain rage.
I get that, and do not necessarily disagree in theory. However, if we left that role, there would be a vacuum and make no mistake, it would be filled. The ominous question is, by whom? And what/whose interests would they promote? Prior to our ascension to the role of sole super-power, we saw exactly what can occur when there is not a stabilizing force attempting to maintain global hegemony.
All of which are fair points also. And I do believe it is important to remember our failures, and hopefully learn enough from them to not repeat them. But does our system of governance allow for such? I’m not sure, considering how the political ideologies in charge can shift on such a frequent basis, relatively speaking.
But, it is the best we have, in my view. We being the world. To my prior point above, if we abdicated this role, who fills the void? Likely people/government’s without the same sense of general morality that we tend to promote. This is one of the reasons I am so pessimistic about Trump’s decision to withdraw us from these roles. Because someone will fill them in our absence.
That’s fair. And rather than beating the dead horse parsing down French’s attempt at comparison, let me ask you this. Do you agree that what Russia did in 2016 was unparalleled? And I know you are not a Trump defender by any means, so what is your take on how Trump has opted to handle this situation now? Seemingly turning a blind eye to it, rather than taking an active role to defend ourselves from it in the future, and punishing them for their brazen attacks on us, as a means to better defend ourselves down the road?
1 Like
Trump’s response this week was milquetoast. Weak.
What we should be doing is a.) bolstering our defenses against a repeat (I imagine we probably already are) and b.) determining the most effective means of bringing down the hammer as a deterrent to Russia pursuing the same course again.
1 Like
Agreed. Have you seen this by chance? I’m in favor of it.
It is a bipartisan piece of legislation from Rubio and Van Hollen called the DETER Act.
What exactly is your point?
It is strange that those that squealed the loudest about Obama’s “apologies” have been silent when Donald overtly tears down the United States.
1 Like
Also must be white, a male as you indicated, “successful” and “Christian”. These are the unspoken rules.
1 Like
I like it, in the main. I don’t care for the idea of an automatic investigation after every election. That’s reactive. We should, if we are doing what we should be doing, already know and taken preventative measures.
1 Like
All they ever wanted to do was plant the seed. It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not.
OHH Please, both parties are responsible for this Russia Chaos! Obama told Medvedev that he would have flexibility for Vlad after his reelection, he also told the FBI to stand down on anything Russia. He also attacked Romney in a debate when even bringing up Russia as a threat. Obama even lifted the Bush Russia Sanctions! Trump has mirrored everything Obama has done. Your outrage was deafening in 2012 on Russia. Election influencing happened under the Obama Presidency. Trump is making it worst by not admitting Russia influenced, bending over for Putin, and taking too long to keep the Obama 2016 Sanctions going. both Trump and Obama were Putin fan boys, if you cant see it or acknowledge it, then you are too far right or left of the spectrum. Both parties built this.
That’s really the best strategy for Trump supporters. I think it’s the one Republican media is running with too (at times).
Best Strategy? How about honest answer! I see you like deflecting from the topic of Obama lifting the Bush Russia Sanctions, and Obama saying that he had flexibility for Putin, and mocking Romney in a debate about Russia imposing a threat , and the fact that he told the FBI to not investigate Russia. Selective outrage is killing this country! Trump and Obama are both wrong on Russia, and its time both parties admit it. Obama didnt pass the Magnisky Sanctions till 2016, why did he wait so long? Why did trump wait so long to keep them in place! We need special counsel Mueller to get to the bottom of this, and we need a special prosecutor to investigate Obama’s relationship with Russia.
Of course it’s the best (current) strategy. Previously everybody was saying nothing happened. Then they had to backtrack and say little stuff happened. Now we’re almost to the point where everyone knows a ton of stuff happened so you have to blame it on people other than Trump. Even though he’s in bed with Putin. It’s just a classic deflection. It’s pretty much expected.
1 Like
Obama called for sanctians and at least talked tough to Putin regarding the hackings. Trump pretty much gave Putin a hug and said dont hewt me
