RussiaGate

[Elixir]

However, like I said, there are likely other "high crimes" that would be impeachable.

IMHO, a half-century-long record of being a total crapweasel should be enough.

 

[barbos]

However, I would claim that a government sponsored attack on our Democratic processes is an act of war, dissolving the treaty.

Then US is at war with the half of the World.

There's your problem - Russia + China ≠ half the world.

South/central America, Middle East, Russia, China, Eastern Europe is close to be half of the world.

 

[Elixir]

There's your problem - Russia + China ≠ half the world.

South/central America, Middle East, Russia, China, Eastern Europe is close to be half of the world.

Please do tell which South/central American, Middle Eastern, Russia and Eastern European countries are indulging in government sponsored attacks on our Democratic processes.
I'll wait right here, while you try to make some shit up.

 

[barbos]

There's your problem - Russia + China ≠ half the world.

South/central America, Middle East, Russia, China, Eastern Europe is close to be half of the world.

Please do tell which South/central American, Middle Eastern, Russia and Eastern European countries are indulging in government sponsored attacks on our Democratic processes.
I'll wait right here, while you try to make some shit up.

It's other way around.

 

[Elixir]

Please do tell which South/central American, Middle Eastern, Russia and Eastern European countries are indulging in government sponsored attacks on our Democratic processes.
I'll wait right here, while you try to make some shit up.

It's other way around.

WHAT "other way around"? You asserted that the US is at war with half the world for their "government sponsored attacks on our Democratic processes". Then you identified a bunch of geographic areas - without identifying any coutries - that you say we are at war with...
I guess you were just pulling stuff out of your ass to try to deflect from the fact that Russia (and maybe China) is the main perpetrator of intentional interference in our electoral processes. But if I'm wrong, it should be no problem for you to back up your assertion with the names of those countries who are also conducting social media and hacking campaigns to destabilize America.

 

[barbos]

Please do tell which South/central American, Middle Eastern, Russia and Eastern European countries are indulging in government sponsored attacks on our Democratic processes.
I'll wait right here, while you try to make some shit up.

It's other way around.

WHAT "other way around"? You asserted that the US is at war with half the world for their "government sponsored attacks on our Democratic processes".

No, that's not what I asserted.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Trump personally decided to abandon plans for more Russia sanctions - CNNPolitics

No collusion!

Yep! Just outright treason.

Russia is not an enemy of the United States, so it can't be "treason".

Since Putin’s invasion of the Ukraine, the US has held in force severe sanctions against Russia; sanctions put in place by Obama that have continued to hinder Russia from developing its vast new oil fields. Russia openly called Obama’s sanctions a hostile act, which is not a layman’s term.

Vice President Dick Cheney called Putin’s actions in the 2016 election a “hostile act”—tantamount to an “act of war” no less—as did Senator John McCain and Senator Martin Heinrich to name a few. Iow, a hostile act by the US was met by an escalated hostile act by Russia, but not just any act; the successful overthrow of our government, placing a “creature” (as Hamilton put it) “of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union.”

In that sense alone, Russia is a defacto enemy of the US. Any nation that would label our sanctions a hostile act against them and then in turn retaliate with their own escalated hostile act against us—a “cyberwar” whose intent was to overthrow our government, no less—is automatically considered our enemy, whether or not it has been officially declared in Congress.

The fact that Trump was informed of Russia’s hostile actions during the general election and openly attempted to deny or otherwise undermine the findings of our own intelligence community in that regard—while at the same time repeatedly courting Russia’s continued involvement both openly and clandestinely (if not directly, certainly through immediate proxies)—were undeniably treasonous acts, as Trump’s own right-hand man (Bannon) confirmed.

Some have argued that Russia is merely a “rival” or “competitor” while an “enemy...is the hostile opposition -- an antagonist that seeks the destruction of its opponent.” Well, that definition has been firmly met imho, but I suppose to be unnecessarily pedantic I should have said Trump’s actions were “treasonous” rather than constituting “treason.”

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Russia is not an enemy of the United States, so it can't be "treason".

Since Putin’s invasion of the Ukraine, the US has held in force severe sanctions against Russia; sanctions put in place by Obama that have continued to hinder Russia from developing its vast new oil fields. Russia openly called Obama’s sanctions a hostile act, which is not a layman’s term.

Vice President Dick Cheney called Putin’s actions in the 2016 election a “hostile act”—tantamount to an “act of war” no less—as did Senator John McCain and Senator Martin Heinrich to name a few. Iow, a hostile act by the US was met by an escalated hostile act by Russia, but not just any act; the successful overthrow of our government, placing a “creature” (as Hamilton put it) “of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union.”

In that sense alone, Russia is a defacto enemy of the US. Any nation that would label our sanctions a hostile act against them and then in turn retaliate with their own escalated hostile act against us—a “cyberwar” whose intent was to overthrow our government, no less—is automatically considered our enemy, whether or not it has been officially declared in Congress.

The fact that Trump was informed of Russia’s hostile actions during the general election and openly attempted to deny or otherwise undermine the findings of our own intelligence community in that regard—while at the same time repeatedly courting Russia’s continued involvement both openly and clandestinely (if not directly, certainly through immediate proxies)—were undeniably treasonous acts, as Trump’s own right-hand man (Bannon) confirmed.

Some have argued that Russia is merely a “rival” or “competitor” while an “enemy...is the hostile opposition -- an antagonist that seeks the destruction of its opponent.” Well, that definition has been firmly met imho, but I suppose to be unnecessarily pedantic I should have said Trump’s actions were “treasonous” rather than constituting “treason.”

I think the most accurate term is ‘betrayal’. I’ll let lawyers determine why he should be shot out of the cannon into the Arctic Ocean.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Or “traitor.”

 

[Elixir]

WHAT "other way around"? You asserted that the US is at war with half the world for their "government sponsored attacks on our Democratic processes".

No, that's not what I asserted.

Oh really?
Here it is in your own words:

However, I would claim that a government sponsored attack on our Democratic processes is an act of war, dissolving the treaty.

Then US is at war with the half of the World.

Maybe you can translate that from your native language in some manner that will tell us how you didn't say what you said.
You appear to be a very dishonest broker in conversation, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the overwhelming doubt, if you can explain why you say something, then tell us it wasn't what you asserted.

 

[barbos]

Oh really?
Here it is in your own words:

However, I would claim that a government sponsored attack on our Democratic processes is an act of war, dissolving the treaty.

Then US is at war with the half of the World.

Maybe you can translate that from your native language in some manner that will tell us how you didn't say what you said.
You appear to be a very dishonest broker in conversation, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the overwhelming doubt, if you can explain why you say something, then tell us it wasn't what you asserted.

I said that US have been sponsoring attacks on Democratic processes in other countries. You are the one being dishonest here.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

ETA: Jinx.

Original: I believe he meant that the US is likewise engaging in “government sponsored” attacks on Democratic processes in other countries amounting to “half of the World.” It’s a tu quoque attempt (or “whataboutism”), which betrays the fact that he recognizes it is wrong.

So really what he just posted was an affirmation that interfering in another country’s Democratic process is an act of war.

 

[barbos]

ETA: Jinx.

Original: I believe he meant that the US is likewise engaging in “government sponsored” attacks on Democratic processes in other countries amounting to “half of the World.” It’s a tu quoque attempt (or “whataboutism”), which betrays the fact that he recognizes it is wrong.

So really what he just posted was an affirmation that interfering in another country’s Democratic process is an act of war.

Will you stop this game of labeling other people posts?
You said that election meddling is an act of war. I merely noted that if it were true then US is at war with half of the world implying that US is meddling in other countries elections. Just because you label it does not make it go away. And were exactly did you get this idea of me advocating that election meddling is not wrong? Your stupid posts make no sense.

 

[barbos]

The fact is, Putin himself was an indirect result of US meddling in Russian presidential elections in the 90s when by all accounts Zyuganov (a communist) was projected to win. US wanted Eltsin (an alcoholic) to win. so they sent a team to help to rig the electiopns. US now sanction russian oligarchs, forgetting how they came about. Do you want me to remind you how they were created? They were created during these elections where they were promised cheap privatization (basically stealing) in exchange for financing Eltsin elections. I don't remember US protesting at the time.
Well, now you have Putin who was hand-picked by Eltsin and oligarchs US election specialists helped to create, but it was a result of US meddling in russian elections. Enjoy.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The fact is, Putin himself was an indirect result of US meddling Russian presidential elections in the 90s when by all accounts Zyuganov (a communist) was projected to win. US wanted Eltsin (an alcoholic) to win. so they sent a team to help to rig the electiopns. US now sanction russian oligarchs, forgetting how they came about. Do you want me to remind you how they were created? They were created during these elections where they were promised cheap privatization (basically stealing) in exchange for financing Eltsin elections. I don't remember US protesting at the time.
Well, now you have Putin who was hand-picked by Eltsin and oligarchs US election specialists helped to create, but it was a result of US meddling in russian elections. Enjoy.

So, once again, you affirm the fact that interfering in another country’s election process is wrong. Thank you, we all agree.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

You said that election meddling is an act of war.

And you affirmed that statement. Here, you do it again (while also trying to shift your goalposts):

I merely noted that if it were true then US is at war with half of the world

It’s a tu quoque fallacy that you “merely noted” (aka, “whataboutism”). You’re trying to avoid dealing with what Putin did by pointing out what other countries (notably the US) have also done. What you keep missing is the fact that in so doing you are necessarily affirming the central point, which is that anyone interfering in any other country’s election is wrong and is committing an act of war.

To put it into The Hunt For Red October terms for you, you’ve killed yourself with your own torpedo.

 

[Copernicus]

ETA: Jinx.

Original: I believe he meant that the US is likewise engaging in “government sponsored” attacks on Democratic processes in other countries amounting to “half of the World.” It’s a tu quoque attempt (or “whataboutism”), which betrays the fact that he recognizes it is wrong.

So really what he just posted was an affirmation that interfering in another country’s Democratic process is an act of war.

Will you stop this game of labeling other people posts?
You said that election meddling is an act of war. I merely noted that if it were true then US is at war with half of the world implying that US is meddling in other countries elections. Just because you label it does not make it go away. And were exactly did you get this idea of me advocating that election meddling is not wrong? Your stupid posts make no sense.

Actually, koy was defending you against Elixir's interpretation by pointing out that you were making a tu quoque argument--that, if Russian had engaged in an act of war, the US had also been engaging in such acts of war against other nations. What upsets you is that he actually caught you agreeing with the criticism of Putin--that what he did was wrong. You pointing out that the US does the same thing is not an excuse for Putin's behavior. Surely you understand that, don't you? All you are saying is that everyone behaves badly, so behaving badly is ok. You are so used to hearing this kind of tu quoque justification for bad behavior--a very common method of distraction used forever in Russian propaganda tirades--that you don't see what is wrong with it. Nobody here is trying to defend bad behavior by the US in the past, because we all recognize that it was bad behavior.

 

[barbos]

ETA: Jinx.

Original: I believe he meant that the US is likewise engaging in “government sponsored” attacks on Democratic processes in other countries amounting to “half of the World.” It’s a tu quoque attempt (or “whataboutism”), which betrays the fact that he recognizes it is wrong.

So really what he just posted was an affirmation that interfering in another country’s Democratic process is an act of war.

Will you stop this game of labeling other people posts?
You said that election meddling is an act of war. I merely noted that if it were true then US is at war with half of the world implying that US is meddling in other countries elections. Just because you label it does not make it go away. And were exactly did you get this idea of me advocating that election meddling is not wrong? Your stupid posts make no sense.

Actually, koy was defending you by pointing out that you were making a tu quoque argument--that, if Russian had engaged in an act of war, the US had also been engaging in such acts of war against other nations. What upsets you is that he actually caught you agreeing with the criticism of Putin--that what he did was wrong.

First, he did not catch me. Second, I did not admit that. Third, I have never been fan of meddling.

You pointing out that the US does the same thing is not an excuse for Putin's behavior.

Well, Putin is on record criticizing US meddling in Russia and other countries long before alleged russian meddling in US elections, funny fact, US completely ignored it, so he might have thought that meddling is now acceptable?

Surely you understand that, don't you? All you are saying is that everyone behaves badly, so behaving badly is ok.

Yes, that's how I think it works in reality. If you keep pissing someone off, eventually they will react.

You are so used to hearing this kind of tu quoque justification for bad behavior--a very common method of distraction used forever in Russian propaganda tirades--that you don't see what is wrong with it. Nobody here is trying to defend bad behavior by the US in the past, because we all recognize that it was bad behavior.

No, you don't recognize it at all. You still believe you were right, in fact you are not even aware of the bad behavior. At best you say, "I am sorry" and keep on doing it again and again and again. That's how neocons operate.

 

[Copernicus]

You pointing out that the US does the same thing is not an excuse for Putin's behavior.

Well, Putin is on record criticizing US meddling in Russia and other countries long before alleged russian meddling in US elections, funny fact, US completely ignored it, so he might have thought that meddling is now acceptable?

You are completely ignoring the reality of Putin's predicament in the 2011 election. He came close to losing it, and there were election irregularities that may have helped him prevail. There were widespread demonstrations against him that had nothing whatsoever to do with the US, but he still resented the fact that she, as US Secretary of State, criticized his election. Criticism is not meddling by any standard other than his own. She broke no Russian laws. So he used Hillary Clinton as a scapegoat to explain the popular revolt against him. During the 2016 election in the US, he actively participated in a US presidential election in a way that broke many laws, most recently leading to indictments of Russian citizens by Mueller and additional sanctions by the US government. That went beyond criticism. THAT was meddling.

See Vladimir Putin's Bad Blood With Hillary Clinton

Surely you understand that, don't you? All you are saying is that everyone behaves badly, so behaving badly is ok.

Yes, that's how I think it works in reality. If you keep pissing someone off, eventually they will react.

Ah, so you still don't understand. I wasn't saying that Putin had no right to be angry and resentful. Nor was I saying he had no right to react. I was saying that he had no right to react in the way he did--by meddling in the US election that went way beyond just criticizing. He was not responding to her in the way that she responded to him. He actually ordered Russian military and intelligence agencies to intervene directly. Not only that, but we now know that he had these agencies intervene in other Western elections, including the Brexit vote and the presidential elections in France.

You are so used to hearing this kind of tu quoque justification for bad behavior--a very common method of distraction used forever in Russian propaganda tirades--that you don't see what is wrong with it. Nobody here is trying to defend bad behavior by the US in the past, because we all recognize that it was bad behavior.

No, you don't recognize it at all. You still believe you were right, in fact you are not even aware of the bad behavior. At best you say, "I am sorry" and keep on doing it again and again and again. That's how neocons operate.

I suppose it's useless to point out to you that tu quoque is a logical fallacy, yet you still insist on using it to defend a conclusion. As for being aware of the "bad behavior", you need to be more specific. There was no credible evidence of any US meddling in Russia's 2011 election. No one denies that the US has a history of overthrowing governments it didn't like during the Cold War, as did Soviet regimes. None of that by either side was justifiable behavior.

 

[Copernicus]

/mod