Trump owns Russia

[treysolid]

Oh, I didn't realize Moscow was on the table. Go get it, Donald!

[star seed 7]

Do not want Moscow, would take st pete tho

[Katpappy]

Do not want Moscow, would take st pete tho

OMG!!!  It's not like you Lib to prove the POTUS right. 

[sonofdaxjones]

It would be good if everyone took a moment to consider all of the elections the United States has interfered in (or just outright pulling off coups and assassinations/assassination attempts) and the damage they caused before we get on our high horse. It of course is a problem and one we need to work to solve, but there is a greater context.

sure, dax.  a bit of whataboutism is always worth a moment.

The NeoCon tendencies of the resident LibBots and Fake Centerists is a bit disturbing.   

Hey, sorry about that coup, man, we’ll reflect and do better next time.  Don’t be mad, tho. 

[Kat Kid]

It would be good if everyone took a moment to consider all of the elections the United States has interfered in (or just outright pulling off coups and assassinations/assassination attempts) and the damage they caused before we get on our high horse. It of course is a problem and one we need to work to solve, but there is a greater context.

We get it, you hate America

No, I really don't. Surprised to see you on the KSUW "American Exceptionalism" train.

Good opportunity for people to learn some history and reflect. Most will not bother.

I don’t know about “American Exceptionalism” as that implies an ideological superiority. I don’t think that is relevant here.  I certainly think it is fine for us to have a different standard for others doing things to us than us doing things to others. That’s what power is for, we have the most, and it is good that we use it. We shouldn’t play by the same rules as some two-bit nothing country.

I'm surprised by how bluntly you put this. This is the Cheney/Kissinger worldview "if we do it, it is legal" and "we should because we can." That is largely the rationale that we operate under. The hubris of it is worth acknowledging, particularly when you see what it has wrought. Even on its own terms it often ends in misery for the US.

Given that you embrace this logic for us, it is even harder to see how Russia wouldn't apply the same logic to themselves.

[Kat Kid]

It would be good if everyone took a moment to consider all of the elections the United States has interfered in (or just outright pulling off coups and assassinations/assassination attempts) and the damage they caused before we get on our high horse. It of course is a problem and one we need to work to solve, but there is a greater context.

sure, dax.  a bit of whataboutism is always worth a moment.

you would've been a Contra.

[sonofdaxjones]

It would be good if everyone took a moment to consider all of the elections the United States has interfered in (or just outright pulling off coups and assassinations/assassination attempts) and the damage they caused before we get on our high horse. It of course is a problem and one we need to work to solve, but there is a greater context.

We get it, you hate America

No, I really don't. Surprised to see you on the KSUW "American Exceptionalism" train.

Good opportunity for people to learn some history and reflect. Most will not bother.

I don’t know about “American Exceptionalism” as that implies an ideological superiority. I don’t think that is relevant here.  I certainly think it is fine for us to have a different standard for others doing things to us than us doing things to others. That’s what power is for, we have the most, and it is good that we use it. We shouldn’t play by the same rules as some two-bit nothing country.

I'm surprised by how bluntly you put this. This is the Cheney/Kissinger worldview "if we do it, it is legal" and "we should because we can." That is largely the rationale that we operate under. The hubris of it is worth acknowledging, particularly when you see what it has wrought. Even on its own terms it often ends in misery for the US.

Given that you embrace this logic for us, it is even harder to see how Russia wouldn't apply the same logic to themselves.

I didn’t know until awhile back, but apparently Barrack was a fan of Brent Snowcroft, which is confusing, interesting and somewhat telling.

[sys]

Given that you embrace this logic for us, it is even harder to see how Russia wouldn't apply the same logic to themselves.

if you want to argue that we should mind our own business a bit more on the world stage, feel free to advance that argument.  but if you advance it in relation to a foreign country interfering in our elections, the only three possibilities i see are:

1.  we've interfered with other countries, ergo we deserve this as penance.
2.  we've interfered with other countries, ergo we cannot complain in turn lest we commit the cardinal sin of hypocrisy.
3.  we've interfered with other countries and i'd rather talk about that than talk about the issue at hand, ergo "whatabout us tho".

frankly, i'm extending you the benefit of the doubt in assuming your point is the third, as the first two are mindbendingly stupid.

[Kat Kid]

Given that you embrace this logic for us, it is even harder to see how Russia wouldn't apply the same logic to themselves.

if you want to argue that we should mind our own business a bit more on the world stage, feel free to advance that argument.  but if you advance it in relation to a foreign country interfering in our elections, the only three possibilities i see are:

1.  we've interfered with other countries, ergo we deserve this as penance.
2.  we've interfered with other countries, ergo we cannot complain in turn lest we commit the cardinal sin of hypocrisy.
3.  we've interfered with other countries and i'd rather talk about that than talk about the issue at hand, ergo "whatabout us tho".

frankly, i'm extending you the benefit of the doubt in assuming your point is the third, as the first two are mindbendingly stupid.

I'm more concerned with the first principle of whether or not interfering in elections is bad or good. 8man thinks it is only good when we do it.

Your "hypocrisy" straw man really betrays an ignorance of the entire subject. Setting and enforcing norms is the basis for a lot of IR theory, even from denizens of hard power. Is there even the illusion of international order when there are no norms at all? It isn't "penance" or "hypocrisy" but rather a pretty logical development of how major powers can exert power on each other without triggering a nuclear war. We couldn't have anticipated this exact response when we overthrew the Shah, but we might've at plenty of other stages.

And this issue isn't some abstraction, we inserted Boris Yeltsin. We actively engaged in a mutual struggle that ended in the collapse of their entire empire. It isn't that we've interfered with "other countries." We've interfered quite a lot with this country. I'm not saying that I am happy about any of this, but the sense of righteous victimhood or the rush to re-start a Cold War (or even a hot one!) are not healthy.

[sys]

Setting and enforcing norms is the basis for a lot of IR theory, even from denizens of hard power. Is there even the illusion of international order when there are no norms at all?

that's a fine point.

We've interfered quite a lot with this country. I'm not saying that I am happy about any of this, but the sense of righteous victimhood or the rush to re-start a Cold War (or even a hot one!) are not healthy.

if your point is nothing more than we should feel less self-righteous as we vigorously defend ourselves from election interference, i guess i don't care one way or another.  i certainly did not understood that to be your point though.

[Kat Kid]

Setting and enforcing norms is the basis for a lot of IR theory, even from denizens of hard power. Is there even the illusion of international order when there are no norms at all?

that's a fine point.

We've interfered quite a lot with this country. I'm not saying that I am happy about any of this, but the sense of righteous victimhood or the rush to re-start a Cold War (or even a hot one!) are not healthy.

if your point is nothing more than we should feel less self-righteous as we vigorously defend ourselves from election interference, i guess i don't care one way or another.  i certainly did not understood that to be your point though.

no. obviously the effects of states consistently interfering in each other's elections has HUGE implications for democracy. which is bad for us and lots of other countries.

I also think that the way in which people are engaging in this story has led large segments to want to militarize and to escalate in more direct provocations with Russia, this too far outweighs "self-righteousness" as a harm, but the "self-righteousness" is the manner through which we will build the will to build the weapons that we later use.

[sys]

as a country, i think our inclination has been to take far too little umbrage at russia's interference rather than the reverse.

[Kat Kid]

as a country, i think our inclination has been to take far too little umbrage at russia's interference rather than the reverse.

I don't think you see what's coming.

[sys]

i hope you're right.

[star seed 7]

Post what's coming kk

[8manpick]

Given that you embrace this logic for us, it is even harder to see how Russia wouldn't apply the same logic to themselves.

if you want to argue that we should mind our own business a bit more on the world stage, feel free to advance that argument.  but if you advance it in relation to a foreign country interfering in our elections, the only three possibilities i see are:

1.  we've interfered with other countries, ergo we deserve this as penance.
2.  we've interfered with other countries, ergo we cannot complain in turn lest we commit the cardinal sin of hypocrisy.
3.  we've interfered with other countries and i'd rather talk about that than talk about the issue at hand, ergo "whatabout us tho".

frankly, i'm extending you the benefit of the doubt in assuming your point is the third, as the first two are mindbendingly stupid.

I'm more concerned with the first principle of whether or not interfering in elections is bad or good. 8man thinks it is only good when we do it.

Your "hypocrisy" straw man really betrays an ignorance of the entire subject. Setting and enforcing norms is the basis for a lot of IR theory, even from denizens of hard power. Is there even the illusion of international order when there are no norms at all? It isn't "penance" or "hypocrisy" but rather a pretty logical development of how major powers can exert power on each other without triggering a nuclear war. We couldn't have anticipated this exact response when we overthrew the Shah, but we might've at plenty of other stages.

And this issue isn't some abstraction, we inserted Boris Yeltsin. We actively engaged in a mutual struggle that ended in the collapse of their entire empire. It isn't that we've interfered with "other countries." We've interfered quite a lot with this country. I'm not saying that I am happy about any of this, but the sense of righteous victimhood or the rush to re-start a Cold War (or even a hot one!) are not healthy.

I don’t think it’s necessarily good when we do it, though I imagine there are cases where it has been. I think it is far more important to not allow someone to do it to us that it is to wallow in our American shame for all of the bad things we’ve done.

My point wasn’t so much that we should meddle in other elections, but that whether we do or not should have no influence on how we react to a similar action being taken toward us.

My ideal view is isolationist, but that isn’t realistic

[Kat Kid]

Given that you embrace this logic for us, it is even harder to see how Russia wouldn't apply the same logic to themselves.

if you want to argue that we should mind our own business a bit more on the world stage, feel free to advance that argument.  but if you advance it in relation to a foreign country interfering in our elections, the only three possibilities i see are:

1.  we've interfered with other countries, ergo we deserve this as penance.
2.  we've interfered with other countries, ergo we cannot complain in turn lest we commit the cardinal sin of hypocrisy.
3.  we've interfered with other countries and i'd rather talk about that than talk about the issue at hand, ergo "whatabout us tho".

frankly, i'm extending you the benefit of the doubt in assuming your point is the third, as the first two are mindbendingly stupid.

I'm more concerned with the first principle of whether or not interfering in elections is bad or good. 8man thinks it is only good when we do it.

Your "hypocrisy" straw man really betrays an ignorance of the entire subject. Setting and enforcing norms is the basis for a lot of IR theory, even from denizens of hard power. Is there even the illusion of international order when there are no norms at all? It isn't "penance" or "hypocrisy" but rather a pretty logical development of how major powers can exert power on each other without triggering a nuclear war. We couldn't have anticipated this exact response when we overthrew the Shah, but we might've at plenty of other stages.

And this issue isn't some abstraction, we inserted Boris Yeltsin. We actively engaged in a mutual struggle that ended in the collapse of their entire empire. It isn't that we've interfered with "other countries." We've interfered quite a lot with this country. I'm not saying that I am happy about any of this, but the sense of righteous victimhood or the rush to re-start a Cold War (or even a hot one!) are not healthy.

I don’t think it’s necessarily good when we do it, though I imagine there are cases where it has been. I think it is far more important to not allow someone to do it to us that it is to wallow in our American shame for all of the bad things we’ve done.

My point wasn’t so much that we should meddle in other elections, but that whether we do or not should have no influence on how we react to a similar action being taken toward us.

My ideal view is isolationist, but that isn’t realistic

You acknowledge that there is a relationship between us doing things and the likelihood that others might do them too?

[8manpick]

Given that you embrace this logic for us, it is even harder to see how Russia wouldn't apply the same logic to themselves.

if you want to argue that we should mind our own business a bit more on the world stage, feel free to advance that argument.  but if you advance it in relation to a foreign country interfering in our elections, the only three possibilities i see are:

1.  we've interfered with other countries, ergo we deserve this as penance.
2.  we've interfered with other countries, ergo we cannot complain in turn lest we commit the cardinal sin of hypocrisy.
3.  we've interfered with other countries and i'd rather talk about that than talk about the issue at hand, ergo "whatabout us tho".

frankly, i'm extending you the benefit of the doubt in assuming your point is the third, as the first two are mindbendingly stupid.

I'm more concerned with the first principle of whether or not interfering in elections is bad or good. 8man thinks it is only good when we do it.

Your "hypocrisy" straw man really betrays an ignorance of the entire subject. Setting and enforcing norms is the basis for a lot of IR theory, even from denizens of hard power. Is there even the illusion of international order when there are no norms at all? It isn't "penance" or "hypocrisy" but rather a pretty logical development of how major powers can exert power on each other without triggering a nuclear war. We couldn't have anticipated this exact response when we overthrew the Shah, but we might've at plenty of other stages.

And this issue isn't some abstraction, we inserted Boris Yeltsin. We actively engaged in a mutual struggle that ended in the collapse of their entire empire. It isn't that we've interfered with "other countries." We've interfered quite a lot with this country. I'm not saying that I am happy about any of this, but the sense of righteous victimhood or the rush to re-start a Cold War (or even a hot one!) are not healthy.

I don’t think it’s necessarily good when we do it, though I imagine there are cases where it has been. I think it is far more important to not allow someone to do it to us that it is to wallow in our American shame for all of the bad things we’ve done.

My point wasn’t so much that we should meddle in other elections, but that whether we do or not should have no influence on how we react to a similar action being taken toward us.

My ideal view is isolationist, but that isn’t realistic

You acknowledge that there is a relationship between us doing things and the likelihood that others might do them too?

Clearly. Should we allow other countries to drone strike us too? Whether we do or don’t meddle has nothing to do with whether we exert our great power to prevent others from doing the same to us

[sonofdaxjones]

The fact that Russians were able to influence anyone at all via their methods paints a sorry picture of the collective intellect of our country.   

But lost as always is the fact the real propaganda campaign didn’t begin until after the election. 

[Kat Kid]

Given that you embrace this logic for us, it is even harder to see how Russia wouldn't apply the same logic to themselves.

if you want to argue that we should mind our own business a bit more on the world stage, feel free to advance that argument.  but if you advance it in relation to a foreign country interfering in our elections, the only three possibilities i see are:

1.  we've interfered with other countries, ergo we deserve this as penance.
2.  we've interfered with other countries, ergo we cannot complain in turn lest we commit the cardinal sin of hypocrisy.
3.  we've interfered with other countries and i'd rather talk about that than talk about the issue at hand, ergo "whatabout us tho".

frankly, i'm extending you the benefit of the doubt in assuming your point is the third, as the first two are mindbendingly stupid.

I'm more concerned with the first principle of whether or not interfering in elections is bad or good. 8man thinks it is only good when we do it.

Your "hypocrisy" straw man really betrays an ignorance of the entire subject. Setting and enforcing norms is the basis for a lot of IR theory, even from denizens of hard power. Is there even the illusion of international order when there are no norms at all? It isn't "penance" or "hypocrisy" but rather a pretty logical development of how major powers can exert power on each other without triggering a nuclear war. We couldn't have anticipated this exact response when we overthrew the Shah, but we might've at plenty of other stages.

And this issue isn't some abstraction, we inserted Boris Yeltsin. We actively engaged in a mutual struggle that ended in the collapse of their entire empire. It isn't that we've interfered with "other countries." We've interfered quite a lot with this country. I'm not saying that I am happy about any of this, but the sense of righteous victimhood or the rush to re-start a Cold War (or even a hot one!) are not healthy.

I don’t think it’s necessarily good when we do it, though I imagine there are cases where it has been. I think it is far more important to not allow someone to do it to us that it is to wallow in our American shame for all of the bad things we’ve done.

My point wasn’t so much that we should meddle in other elections, but that whether we do or not should have no influence on how we react to a similar action being taken toward us.

My ideal view is isolationist, but that isn’t realistic

You acknowledge that there is a relationship between us doing things and the likelihood that others might do them too?

Clearly. Should we allow other countries to drone strike us too? Whether we do or don’t meddle has nothing to do with whether we exert our great power to prevent others from doing the same to us

Not allow. But consider what the consequences are of using our power. The fact that Iran, for instance, has a pretty formidable drone army and that drones are now going to be an increasingly important part of warfare (as opposed to say the $ Trillion + F-35) means we should probably think pretty carefully about what kind of norms we want to set around it’s use. Same for torture, same for nuclear weapons, same for the weaponization of space. The notion that we can just will ourselves in to being a Goliath that exercises absolute control over he world is exactly the kind of hubris that brought us Iraq and Afghanistan which are both monuments to our failure to be some sort of all-powerful force for good (or bad). There are limits.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wetwillie]

We should do anything and everything we can to stay on top.  No one will treat us any better after our decline in power because we were fair and just while we had it.

[steve dave]

https://twitter.com/existentialfish/status/1018617864637607936?s=21


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sys]

https://twitter.com/jdickerson/status/1018884167042588672

[bucket]

https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1018888088662179841

https://twitter.com/JohnWDean/status/1018890380954165248

So, how was the press conference?

[sonofdaxjones]

Man the New NeoCons are really melting down.

John Dean's White House boss held a summit in Moscow when the United States was quite literally engaged in all out war with Russian proxy states, and the Soviet regime and it's proxies were engaged in human rights violations far exceeding anything that goes on today.  But, history doesn't matter.