Why the Democrats are making a big mistake by obsessing over Russia

[rjv]

I did not state Greeks invented democracies. And of course democracies have differences. But the fundamentals are the same. So you brought the US into the discussion about the Russian government to provide some sort of equivalence the "look what we do" defense. That, I object to. We are not the same. Our histories are entirely different. They have a history of rule by strongmen, we don't come close to that even if some presidents were able to exert more control than others.

yes, in theory, there are common denominators to the varying paradigms of democracy, but the current state of the United States resembles a plutocracy far more than it does any version of democracy. So back to your earlier post, it is not the idea of a democracy that I am opposed to. It is the idea of a corrupted democracy that I harbor antipathy towards. I do think we have deviated from the topic at hand in that the question is not whether or not a citizen of the United States would enjoy more freedom than a citizen of Russia. The question is whether or not Russia's still alleged transgression in the U.S. elections are any more, or less, egregious than any of the U.S. foreign policy transgressions towards Russia in the past few decades. You clearly state that you feel the answer is clearly Russia. That does not make the question moot, nor is the response something that can be clearly quantified. The clandestine and hypocritical posture of both nations serves to makes the matter that much more opaque. Risking increased tensions under these cir stances seems risky to me (or calculated).

[pgardn]

35:38

Darrin was going to get to that part.
You just know he was.

[rjv]

Snowden is not a pragmatic issue. It's a basic issue any democracy has. It is the rights of an individual vs. the rights of the whole. Again, look what his copycat did. There must be a control over what individuals in a society are allowed to make public. In turn there must be a way for legit whistle blowers to have a path to right perceived wrongs. I feel that the aforementioned is a very basic idea that is very difficult to sort through.

I would also say it is very clear our cons ution and laws are firmly implanted in Judeo-Christian beliefs. How they actually work in practice as seen by slavery, the subjugation of women, internment camps... is not always consistent with the rules.

not any democracy, and certainly not the current state of our democracy. From this post, though, it does appear that you are making a moral statement about Snowden and it appears that it is being made as if this is an absolute law which, as I mentioned before, begs the question: can one be relative about what laws should be considered absolute? and, to what absolute are you referring to? the good of the American government? the good of the American people as a whole, but not as individuals? I agree that is a hard issue to grapple with, but that in itself implies that there is no moral certainty here.

[pgardn]

yes, in theory, there are common denominators to the varying paradigms of democracy, but the current state of the United States resembles a plutocracy far more than it does any version of democracy. So back to your earlier post, it is not the idea of a democracy that I am opposed to. It is the idea of a corrupted democracy that I harbor antipathy towards. I do think we have deviated from the topic at hand in that the question is not whether or not a citizen of the United States would enjoy more freedom than a citizen of Russia. The question is whether or not Russia's still alleged transgression in the U.S. elections are any more, or less, egregious than any of the U.S. foreign policy transgressions towards Russia in the past few decades. You clearly state that you feel the answer is clearly Russia. That does not make the question moot, nor is the response something that can be clearly quantified. The clandestine and hypocritical posture of both nations serves to makes the matter that much more opaque. Risking increased tensions under these cir stances seems risky to me (or calculated).

The transgression of Russia towards its own people is by far the most disappointing. The most obvious change since the Soviet Union fell is the reliance on military presence to become a player again, economic strength be damned. This is a country with a wealth of resources in which common folks live like crap. I have yet to read another viable way to deal with them other than to make them hurt more economically. Their current regime is more interested in being disruptive to neighbor's and beyond instead of solving a perpetually rotten core of economics. This is an incredibly corrupt stagnating country with unrealized potential IMO.

[RandomGuy]

The transgression of Russia towards its own people is by far the most disappointing. The most obvious change since the Soviet Union fell is the reliance on military presence to become a player again, economic strength be damned. This is a country with a wealth of resources in which common folks live like crap. I have yet to read another viable way to deal with them other than to make them hurt more economically. Their current regime is more interested in being disruptive to neighbor's and beyond instead of solving a perpetually rotten core of economics. This is an incredibly corrupt stagnating country with unrealized potential IMO.

+1

Sad to watch, especially when leaders seem more interested in their own enrichment than anything else.

[rjv]

The transgression of Russia towards its own people is by far the most disappointing. The most obvious change since the Soviet Union fell is the reliance on military presence to become a player again, economic strength be damned. This is a country with a wealth of resources in which common folks live like crap. I have yet to read another viable way to deal with them other than to make them hurt more economically. Their current regime is more interested in being disruptive to neighbor's and beyond instead of solving a perpetually rotten core of economics. This is an incredibly corrupt stagnating country with unrealized potential IMO.

fair enough.

[rjv]

+1

Sad to watch, especially when leaders seem more interested in their own enrichment than anything else.

that narrative, unfortunately, hits way too close to home, and can be said of far too many nations at this point and time in history.

[pgardn]

that narrative, unfortunately, hits way too close to home, and can be said of far too many nations at this point and time in history.

It indeed does.

I probably need to write Putin instead of The Russians when writing about how I feel about the absolute waste that has characterized this vast country.

[SnakeBoy]

The transgression of Russia towards its own people is by far the most disappointing. The most obvious change since the Soviet Union fell is the reliance on military presence to become a player again, economic strength be damned. This is a country with a wealth of resources in which common folks live like crap. I have yet to read another viable way to deal with them other than to make them hurt more economically. Their current regime is more interested in being disruptive to neighbor's and beyond instead of solving a perpetually rotten core of economics. This is an incredibly corrupt stagnating country with unrealized potential IMO.

Well more sanctions should fix all those problems and make life wonderful for the Russian people. Sanctions are always so effective at bringing about positive change that there is no chance the govt will be able to convince the people that it's the sanctions from the west that are causing all their problems.

[baseline bum]

They're interchangeable at this point. Hillary, Trump. Both are useless POS who cant get out of their own way.

Surely you can agree to that at least.

I like how Clinton took a page out of the Trump playbook and blamed the media, the FBI, the DNC, everyone but herself for blowing an election she should have won in a landslide.

[rjv]

I like how Clinton took a page out of the Trump playbook and blamed the media, the FBI, the DNC, everyone but herself for blowing an election she should have won in a landslide.

and the dems better look in the mirror and avoid the same sort of path clinton is taking in making everyone but herself responsible. otherwise, the dems will fail to gain any ground in 2018.

[Adam Lambert]

Well more sanctions should fix all those problems and make life wonderful for the Russian people. Sanctions are always so effective at bringing about positive change that there is no chance the govt will be able to convince the people that it's the sanctions from the west that are causing all their problems.

oh now were avoiding sanctions that might impact the people in the countries with those sanctions? thats an interesting change in foreign policy.

be sure to tell cuba.

[TSA]

I like how Clinton took a page out of the Trump playbook and blamed the media, the FBI, the DNC, everyone but herself for blowing an election she should have won in a landslide.

Dumb should just shut up and be happy she's not sitting in a jail cell like all the other "regular" people who mishandled classified material are doing.

[TSA]

oh now were avoiding sanctions that might impact the people in the countries with those sanctions? thats an interesting change in foreign policy.

be sure to tell cuba.

These sanctions would impact more than Russia. Merkel is already throwing a fit.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...KBN197156?il=0

[RandomGuy]

These sanctions would impact more than Russia. Merkel is already throwing a fit.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...KBN197156?il=0

Ja, ich hab' das geliest. Not quite hitting what they were aiming for.

[pgardn]

Well more sanctions should fix all those problems and make life wonderful for the Russian people. Sanctions are always so effective at bringing about positive change that there is no chance the govt will be able to convince the people that it's the sanctions from the west that are causing all their problems.

Its causing street protests right now. Putin just jailed his political rival again for the protests. So yes they do have an effect. The general population gets involved.

Do you have a better solution. Cause talking with them when they have internal problems that are obvious does have more of an affect. A 97-2 bipartisan vote in the Senate tells me this theory does work. It's more than some punishment, it causes them to deal from a position of weakness. The short term says we must get them out of their little games of attempting to disrupt a free population's belief in the power of free elections. Something that puts us at a huge advantage in so many ways. With Hillary and the Democrats, and people thinking Trump has somehow asked the Russians to get him elected, this is an important issue. Trump claiming 3 million people voting illegally was childish and hurtful as well. The Europeans understand this better than us because they have dealt with tyrant kings and queens. Sanctions, now.

So Snake, how to deal with them?

[boutons_deux]

Late night people, and Maddow, are boosting their careers and ratings with EXCELLENT destruction of Trash


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hg_x7S5PADE

[pgardn]

Late night people, and Maddow, are boosting their careers and ratings with EXCELLENT destruction of Trash


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hg_x7S5PADE

7:50-8:05

Good Christ, what a mealy mouthed freak...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Given Trump's impotence in pushing any agenda and the state of the midterm polling I would say that the Dems are on the right track.

Then of course there is the reality that Flynn, Manafort and Sessions indeed misrepresented their interactions with the Russians giving this scandal legitimacy.

[tlongII]

Senate overwhelmingly votes to impose new sanctions on Russia over election meddling

97-2

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/14/senat...-meddling.html

My question remains, and this is a really good way to falsify my theory. Be happy to admit he isn't compromised, if some evidence supports that. Everything he has done thus far is consistent with compromised and/or some level of collusion. Any actions against Russia would put that to rest.

What steps has the Trump administration undertaken to hold Russia to account for this?

That ain't the way it works RG. You have to produce evidence that he was compromised. So far you haven't.

[pgardn]

That ain't the way it works RG. You have to produce evidence that he was compromised. So far you haven't.

So when do further sanctions get underway?

[RandomGuy]

What steps has the Trump administration undertaken to hold Russia to account for this?

That ain't the way it works RG. You have to produce evidence that he was compromised. So far you haven't.

I will not claim he has been compromised, as the evidence to that regard is not developed, at this time. Since I am not claiming, I do not take on a burden of proof.

I have pointed out though, his behavior and statements are fully consistent with being compromised, a fact you, and TSA, seem desperate to ignore.

That is the way it works. I don't make claims of fact that are not in evidence.

A good theory is, however, falsifiable.

"Trump is compromised" is exactly that kind of theory. Evidence he is not would be public criticisms of Putin and/or the Russian government, and holding Russia accountable for what amounts to an attack.

If it were bull , it would be easily found out.

That you can't find anything, you really should be asking why his behavior in terms of criticizing anyone, even allies and long time trading partners, suddenly changes when it comes to Russia. "America first"*
Gets a big asterisk.



*except when it comes to Russian interests
-

[tlongII]

I will not claim he has been compromised, as the evidence to that regard is not developed, at this time. Since I am not claiming, I do not take on a burden of proof.

I have pointed out though, his behavior and statements are fully consistent with being compromised, a fact you, and TSA, seem desperate to ignore.

That is the way it works. I don't make claims of fact that are not in evidence.

A good theory is, however, falsifiable.

"Trump is compromised" is exactly that kind of theory. Evidence he is not would be public criticisms of Putin and/or the Russian government, and holding Russia accountable for what amounts to an attack.

If it were bull , it would be easily found out.

That you can't find anything, you really should be asking why his behavior in terms of criticizing anyone, even allies and long time trading partners, suddenly changes when it comes to Russia. "America first"*
Gets a big asterisk.



*except when it comes to Russian interests
-

No it's not. But I suspect you know that already.

[TSA]

I will not claim he has been compromised, as the evidence to that regard is not developed, at this time. Since I am not claiming, I do not take on a burden of proof.

Be happy to admit he isn't compromised, if some evidence supports that.

pick a lane

[Chucho]

I have pointed out though, his behavior and statements are fully consistent with being compromised, a fact you, and TSA, seem desperate to ignore.

So, you're a behaviorist who's assertions should be taken as fact??

I will not claim he has been compromised... Since I am not claiming, I do not take on a burden of proof.

Bu...but, but:

I have pointed out though, his behavior and statements are fully consistent with being compromised, a fact you, and TSA, seem desperate to ignore.