6 ms·

Can you please explain the difference you’re talking about from the standpoint of a working class citizen of Iran in 1953 or of Chile in 1973?

by xtian 6y ago

slg 6y ago
The people of Iran and Chile were collateral damage of the US. Our government did not care one way or another about them. The people of the US are the primary target of Russia. Their government is actively trying to do us harm. It is indifference versus malice. This isn't a defense of US foreign policy. We have a history of doing awful things. It is simply recognizing differences between the two countries approaches and noting that the fears that initially sparked this tangent match up nearly perfectly with Russia's goals and actions.
- xtian 6y ago
  How have you gained so much insight into Russia’s long-term geopolitical strategy and deduced that their primary goal is malice against American people? Through US media? Why do you think they’d invest considerable national resources into this malice for the powerless citizenry? And why do you think this supposed intent matters so much? Do you think outcomes will be worse for the people of the US than living under Pinochet or in modern-day Fallujah? Or do you think polarization and misinformation are not the least of the strategies the US uses in its foreign interventions? I’m legitimately confused by your viewpoint.
  - slg 6y ago
    Intent matters in society. There is a difference between murder and manslaughter. We don't know the ultimate result of all this on the US since we are right in the middle of it. It is possible things turn out relatively fine, but the US democracy right now is on the edge of collapse. The most recent example of such is that we have generals worried about a coup. [1] Also the US isn't the only target of this type of behavior. Russia is doing it to numerous other countries and it is being reported in both foreign media and by various academics. I have explained my viewpoint numerous times. I don't think I need to explain it any more. I am legitimately confused on what you are trying to achieve by repeatedly questioning that viewpoint. I already admitted the US does bad things. I am not making a value judgement of US versus Russia. I am stating that the specific situation outlined matches closer to Russia's behavior than the US's. [1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/25/us/politics/trump-military-election.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/25/us/politics/trump-militar...
    - DenisM 6y ago
      > the US democracy right now is on the edge of collapse How so? The elections are happening, legislature legislates, judicial system is adjudicating, the military is following the constitution. What are the signs of the collapse? The sole link you provided has nothing to do with a coup - it talks about Trump potentially deploying military to quell riots. It is his constitutional right to do, however the generals are of course free to resign from this. Is this a coup on your book?
      - jakelazaroff 6y ago
        > The elections are happening, legislature legislates, judicial system is adjudicating, the military is following the constitution. "Collapse of democracy" doesn't impute lawlessness. The attempt to cripple the USPS under DeJoy was legal, for example. If the US continues its slide into authoritarianism, you can bet it will happen with the pretense of legality. But that aside, Trump has indicated that he won't honor the election result [1]. GP's link mentions that as well, and links to the article: > “Get rid of the ballots and you’ll have a very peaceful — there won’t be a transfer, frankly. There will be a continuation,” the president said. There are also many scenarios in which the election result leads us into Constitutionally uncharted territory. The Atlantic painted some plausible pictures recently [2], including a quote from a Trump campaign legal advisor about appointing electors that don't match a state's popular vote result: > According to sources in the Republican Party at the state and national levels, the Trump campaign is discussing contingency plans to bypass election results and appoint loyal electors in battleground states where Republicans hold the legislative majority. With a justification based on claims of rampant fraud, Trump would ask state legislators to set aside the popular vote and exercise their power to choose a slate of electors directly. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/23/us/politics/trump-power-transfer-2020-election.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/23/us/politics/trump-power-t... [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/11/what-if-trump-refuses-concede/616424/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/11/what-if...
        DenisM 6y ago
        > If the US continues its slide into authoritarianism, you can bet it will happen with the pretense of legality And how is this going to happen? The Constitution puts firm limits on the President's power, the Supreme court will not approve of anything contrary to that (no matter who appointed the justices), and the Congress is not going to change the constitution by a vote of 2/3rd. What is the mechanism of usurping power that you see?

Can you please explain the difference you’re talking about from the standpoint of a working class citizen of Iran in 1953 or of Chile in 1973?

by xtian 6y ago

Can you please explain the difference you’re talking about from the standpoint of a working class citizen of Iran in 1953 or of Chile in 1973?

slg 6y ago

The people of Iran and Chile were collateral damage of the US. Our government did not care one way or another about them. The people of the US are the primary target of Russia. Their government is actively trying to do us harm. It is indifference versus malice. This isn't a defense of US foreign policy. We have a history of doing awful things. It is simply recognizing differences between the two countries approaches and noting that the fears that initially sparked this tangent match up nearly perfectly with Russia's goals and actions.

xtian 6y ago
How have you gained so much insight into Russia’s long-term geopolitical strategy and deduced that their primary goal is malice against American people? Through US media? Why do you think they’d invest considerable national resources into this malice for the powerless citizenry? And why do you think this supposed intent matters so much? Do you think outcomes will be worse for the people of the US than living under Pinochet or in modern-day Fallujah? Or do you think polarization and misinformation are not the least of the strategies the US uses in its foreign interventions? I’m legitimately confused by your viewpoint.
- slg 6y ago
  Intent matters in society. There is a difference between murder and manslaughter. We don't know the ultimate result of all this on the US since we are right in the middle of it. It is possible things turn out relatively fine, but the US democracy right now is on the edge of collapse. The most recent example of such is that we have generals worried about a coup. [1] Also the US isn't the only target of this type of behavior. Russia is doing it to numerous other countries and it is being reported in both foreign media and by various academics. I have explained my viewpoint numerous times. I don't think I need to explain it any more. I am legitimately confused on what you are trying to achieve by repeatedly questioning that viewpoint. I already admitted the US does bad things. I am not making a value judgement of US versus Russia. I am stating that the specific situation outlined matches closer to Russia's behavior than the US's. [1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/25/us/politics/trump-military-election.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/25/us/politics/trump-militar...
  - DenisM 6y ago
    > the US democracy right now is on the edge of collapse How so? The elections are happening, legislature legislates, judicial system is adjudicating, the military is following the constitution. What are the signs of the collapse? The sole link you provided has nothing to do with a coup - it talks about Trump potentially deploying military to quell riots. It is his constitutional right to do, however the generals are of course free to resign from this. Is this a coup on your book?
    - jakelazaroff 6y ago
      > The elections are happening, legislature legislates, judicial system is adjudicating, the military is following the constitution. "Collapse of democracy" doesn't impute lawlessness. The attempt to cripple the USPS under DeJoy was legal, for example. If the US continues its slide into authoritarianism, you can bet it will happen with the pretense of legality. But that aside, Trump has indicated that he won't honor the election result [1]. GP's link mentions that as well, and links to the article: > “Get rid of the ballots and you’ll have a very peaceful — there won’t be a transfer, frankly. There will be a continuation,” the president said. There are also many scenarios in which the election result leads us into Constitutionally uncharted territory. The Atlantic painted some plausible pictures recently [2], including a quote from a Trump campaign legal advisor about appointing electors that don't match a state's popular vote result: > According to sources in the Republican Party at the state and national levels, the Trump campaign is discussing contingency plans to bypass election results and appoint loyal electors in battleground states where Republicans hold the legislative majority. With a justification based on claims of rampant fraud, Trump would ask state legislators to set aside the popular vote and exercise their power to choose a slate of electors directly. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/23/us/politics/trump-power-transfer-2020-election.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/23/us/politics/trump-power-t... [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/11/what-if-trump-refuses-concede/616424/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/11/what-if...
      - DenisM 6y ago
        > If the US continues its slide into authoritarianism, you can bet it will happen with the pretense of legality And how is this going to happen? The Constitution puts firm limits on the President's power, the Supreme court will not approve of anything contrary to that (no matter who appointed the justices), and the Congress is not going to change the constitution by a vote of 2/3rd. What is the mechanism of usurping power that you see?