Straha wrote: ↑
Your kneejerk defensiveness about this, coupled with your ranting below, speaks volumes more to this than anything I could ever say.
"If you object to my defamation and ad homiem, that proves its true!"
Go fuck yourself. I am long past tired of every lazy, cowardly shit stain on this board trying to paint me with the same damn smears and ad hominems about how I'm an imperialist, an American exceptionalist, etc. because they've got a grudge, or its an easy way to discredit my arguments by ad hominem, or because I don't have my mouth figuratively clamped around Putin's dick.
I take such offense because it is a lie
, because it is meant to discredit my arguments and to advance the propaganda of a fascist regime by defamation, and that is more than enough justification to get angry. It would say something pretty bad about me if you implied I was an imperialist and I wasn't
offended. Likewise, my hostility towards the Russian government (not
the Russian nation or people, because I am not racist enough to regard Putin as synonymous with Russia), is due to its actions, not any support for American exceptionalism.
Okay, buddy. Political and Cultural legitimacy are kind of basic Poli Sci topics that you should have a grasp of if you're going to post like this. At the very least, read the Wikipedia page and assorted links
about the concept before acting befuddled about it here. This isn't Norm Ornstein level stuff here, it's all pretty basic.
"You're stupid and ignorant for not agreeing with my definition".
Do you understand that there is, in fact, a difference between a rebuttal and a smear? Don't you?
As for the U.S. Presidency, there are a number of things a potential president has to do
, and then a reigning president must avowedly affirm, in order to be taken seriously. They are, in part and in no particular order:
- Establish oneself as a christian. Preferably a Protestant but Wasp-y Catholic will suffice.
- Be avowedly Capitalist.
- Establish a largely uncritical relationship with the US' history, with minor 'corrective' apologies allowed but deeper systemic issues denied.
- Tied to that, be a firm believer in American Exceptionalism and all it entails.
- Be unabashedly supportive of the US Military, and be fundamentally supportive of American military intervention abroad.
- Affirm an imperialist foreign policy.
The use of the rhetoric of white supremacy is another long-standing one, and Obama's partial transgression of it is arguably one of the reasons why people were so incensed by him.
Those are largely accurate as traditional political conventions (although ones that are slowly being eroded- the diversity of the current Democratic field is frankly stunning compared to any prior race in American history), but they are not the same as "legitimacy" in a legal sense. Hence the confusion.
Anyway, since the beginning of the union the President has always established their bona fides by directly intervening in the internal politics of foreign nations. This is seen earliest on, and perhaps most starkly, in the constant, repeated, and unending (to this day) interventions in Native Nations across the continent, but can also be seen from the earliest days with interventions in Haiti, Spanish Florida, etc. through the 1800s starting with the disruption (and eventual invasion of) Mexico and continuing with constant interference in the Caribbean, all through the 20th and 21st Century.
I don't want to turn this into a laundry list of interventions, but it's beyond dispute that by the late 20th and early 21st Century the president is expected, de rigeur, to intervene forcefully in other nations in a myriad of different ways to enrich US monied interests and protect the international interests of the country, whether or not the intervention is welcome in or good for the countries in which the US is intervening. It is what it means to be the head of this imperial project and to imagine the office otherwise is taboo.
The cornerstone of this since the Russian Revolution has been the containment of the Soviet experiment, the rolling back of communism through any means available, and (since the collapse of the USSR) the denuding and containing of the Russian state. Clinton and H.W. Bush did this with great force, W. and Obama both established 'tough on Russia' as a cornerstone of their foreign policy. This, again, isn't some revelation, there's plenty of stuff written about this and the rhetoric that surrounds American policy viz-a-viz Russia and I encourage you to read it.
I am, in fact, well aware of all of the above. I simply am employing a different definition of "legitimacy", because none of these are legal requirements of the office of the Presidency, nor even practical requirements except insofar as Presidents have traditionally been from a social class that benefits from such actions.
I do hope, however, that you are at least not foolish enough to imagine that Russia today has anything to do with the Soviet Union or communism, or to equate current opposition to Russia with opposition to communism. Russia today is fascist, not communist.
And while I expect you to ignore what I am about to say, I will reiterate that whatever the reasons for US policy towards Russia, I personally have no hostility toward the Russian nation or people- my opposition is to the Putin regime, and my desire to "contain" Russia extends only so far as Russia is currently a fascist state. Much like I have no hatred of or desire to constrain the United States- my hostility is to the Trump regime, and I wish to constrain the actions of the US only insofar as the US is currently a fascist state. My enemy is fascism, despotism, and bigotry, and I do not care what borders it lies within or what flag it marches under or what name it calls itself, whether it be in my nation or in any other. So to those who equate those things with America, and automatically side with those who are against America, I am the enemy, because unlike them I actually try to be consistent in my opposition to tyranny.
If you or any of Putin's water carriers on this board were honest, you would acknowledge that I have been as harsh in my condemnation of American crimes as of Russian crimes. I mean fuck, have you read any
of my posts about Trump and Republicans? I will admit I may have gone too easy on Democrats on occassion, but I still disavowed Tulsi Gabbard when she dabbled in Islamophobia and xenophobia, I disavowed Bill Clinton for being a fucking rapist, and I will acknowledge that Obama committed grave errors by not prosecuting Bush era war crimes (you hear that, I acknowledged that the Bush Administration committed war crimes), by soft-peddling the response to white supremacist terrorism, and by sending troops into Syria. So let's be clear here- I don't give a shit about American exceptionalism or America ruling the world. I won't claim that I am immune to bias- I don't think there is a human being on Earth who can honestly claim that. But I try to be aware of and resist my own biases, and to be consistent in my opposition to fascism. And I regard being painted as an advocate of American exceptionalism and Imperialism as nothing less than libel, though the insult to me is insignificance next to the fact that you are (hopefully in ignorance) advancing a fascist agenda. This is the cause of my anger. Because in fact I am not
an American exceptionalist- I try to hold America to the same standard as every other nation, which is to condemn tyranny when I see it, without engaging in general condemnation of the nation or its people.
Buddy. Your argument is that American democracy is so broken that it can be influenced by tired rehashes of lies which were stale when Gingrich was still an elected official. Like, straight up the claim that "the idea that Hillary Clinton murdered Seth Rich changed the 2016 election" is absurdly elitist and dismissively condescending towards the American voter, deeply pessimistic about the American political project, and fucking asburd on its face.
I'm surprised you acknowledge it is a lie.
In any case, nowhere did I claim that this single lie, that Clinton murdered Seth Rich, decided the election. It is one example of a vast pattern of Russian interference. Which, as I have repeatedly noted, did not have to sway all or even most of the American populace. Just a relatively small block of voters in certain swing states. Because while not yet completely broken, American "democracy" is and always has been deeply flawed.
That is no justification for Russia wreaking further ruin on it, and undermining any efforts to reform it.
My argument re: intervention as a praxis, which is pretty blatant, is that given how the US positions itself in the world, the influence it wields like a hatchet, and the effect it has on other nations other nations need to intervene in US Domestic politics in order to protect their own people. If you believe that that's a fundamentally illegitimate action that should be opposed as an almost categorical imperative, that's fine, I don't necessarily disagree. But that also means that the American political system is one which is fundamentally illegitimate, and to defend the sanctity of its elections is at best an act of imperialist complacency.
So your argument is literally "If you support the right of the American people to choose their own government, you're an Imperialist".
That is so fucking warped it defies description. As Orwell put it, "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength".
I will support the right of Russian people to have a say in America's government on the day that there is a global government in which every citizen of the world gets a vote. I will not support the "right" of Russian oligarchs/mobsters to pick our President for their personal benefit.
You think Putin gives a fuck about protecting the Russian people? Tell that to the people starving while he enjoys his billions. Tell that to the homosexuals his regime has jailed and tortured and killed, and the dissidents its murdered. Putin cares about his nation as an abstract concept, not its actual people, and he cares about lining the pockets of himself and his friends, nothing more. Much like Trump, really.
'You can't just string random words together and sound clever, you know.'
So no defense of the preposterous suggestion that Russian policy is dictated by America, no rebuttal of my characterizing it as delusional or a lie, just repeating my own words back at me as though kindergarten-level debating tactics make you sound clever.
Okay, concession accepted.
The intention of your posts to deflect blame from Russia's actions and onto the US is utterly obvious.
Not a whit of this comment is about the legitimacy of Russian action. I'm genuinely baffled that you don't get how saying that American elections can have their outcome changed by the spreading of the line that "Hillary Clinton is a murderer" (that's the slander I'm referencing, btw) doesn't mean, as a straight up conclusion, that democracy as a political system is fundamentally broken.
Already refuted above, and yes, you did explicitly argue in your last post that American democracy being broken makes Russian intervention justified:
Putin's Tool wrote:As such, why shouldn't Russia have a stake in determining who the President is? Especially when your argument is that the people who pick the President in the US are idiotic rubes who can be influenced by the weakest of deceptions. The only logical move then is to intervene, rather then let put what is most precious to Russia into the hands of incompetents and imbeciles, to sit back and be complacent would be the worst abrogation of the responsibility that the Russian government has to its citizens.
Pepsi Challenge, where do you think I engaged in Whataboutism.
Immediately responding to the issue of Russian election interference in your first post by bringing up "but America does it too".
The whining about 'honest debating' is deeply undercut when you engage in such pathetically transparent strawmanning.
You say its a strawman? Despite the fact that your posts are all attacking me or attacking America while arguing that Russia's election interference is justified?
Alright. Prove me wrong by acknowledging and denouncing the Kremlin's jailing and torture of homosexuals, the murder and harrassment of dissidents, illegal interference in the elections of multiple sovereign nations for the purpose of undermining democracy and formenting instability, and the imperialist occupation of Ukraine and support for the mass-murdering Assad regime.
GrosseAdmiralFox wrote: ↑
Um, TRR, I think you're arguing with either a Russian pasty OR a Russian operative with Straha...
I think you meant patsy.
Nah, he's been around long enough on this board that I know he's not a Russian sock-puppet account. I honestly wish he was, because the idea that someone would post this drivel pro bono
depressing. I could at least respect the pragmatism of a well-paid whore.