Make America Guilty Again

[Tallguy88]

Is that a qualitative or merely quantitative difference?

Well Putin has done nothing comparable to the Great Leap Forward or the Cultural Revolution. He hasn't overseen forced industrialization and mass starvation, deportation, and genocide.

So, both. Doesn't mean he's a good guy or that he isn't a ruthless killer. But he's not Mao.

 

[TLK Valentine]

How is saying that no world government is innocent putting the world in a black and white view?

By using it to defend the atrocious actions of another government.

For there to be a black and white view, there has to be a good guy and a bad guy and there are no good guy's in this world.

Do you therefore believe we're all equally bad? Do you think that since none of us are perfect, we all belong in the bottom of the barrel?

Let's see: "No national government is worse or better than the other."

Yes, you do.

Shall we call this an impasse then? Since we both know that neither of us are really going to back down from our respective viewpoints.

Yes, we're going to have to agree to disagree... I would pray for you if that was my thing.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

By using it to defend the atrocious actions of another government.

Where did I defend Putin?! Where did I say that Putin was a good guy?

Do you therefore believe we're all equally bad? Do you think that since none of us are perfect, we all belong in the bottom of the barrel?

Eh, more like in the middle of the barrel.

Let's see: "No national government is worse or better than the other."

Yes, you do.

You must have serious problems since that does not mean it's a black and white world. That means that no government is able to stand up and say "Oh, we've done nothing wrong." No government can do that.
That's not a black and white world. That's a grey on gray reality.

Yes, we're going to have to agree to disagree... I would pray for you if that was my thing.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Where did I defend Putin?! Where did I say that Putin was a good guy?

You didn't -- but Trump did, and you're defending Trump.

Eh, more like in the middle of the barrel.

Can we at the very least agree that there's a lot of space in that barrel? And that some are closer to the bottom than others?

"No national government is worse or better than the other."

I guess not.

You must have serious problems since that does not mean it's a black and white world. That means that no government is able to stand up and say "Oh, we've done nothing wrong." No government can do that.
That's not a black and white world. That's a grey on gray reality.

No government is saying that -- until now.

Trump can and has dismissed criticism of Putin by drawing attention to America's faults and past mistakes. He didn't bother to specifically name them... but you did.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You didn't -- but Trump did, and you're defending Trump.

And that's an inductive fallacy. I think Trumps a blowhard, ignorant... well, I can't go in to what else I think he is. But even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Can we at the very least agree that there's a lot of space in that barrel? And that some are closer to the bottom than others?

"No national government is worse or better than the other."

I guess not.

If I had gone in to more specifics, this thread would have gone horribly off-topic and then someone would have Godwinned it into oblivion.

No government is saying that -- until now.

Supporters of different governments do and have, and many governments refuse to acknowledge their past mistakes, like America and Russia.

Trump can and has dismissed criticism of Putin by drawing attention to America's faults and past mistakes. He didn't bother to specifically name them... but you did.

And what would Trump gain if he needlessly began antagonizing Putin? What does any government gain from poking the Russian bear?

 

[HannahT]

It's actually quite clever -- putting America on the same moral ground as Russia will make it so much easier to normalize Trump when he starts using Putin's tactics.

(shrugs) When Trump said that he felt Putin was a stronger leader than Obama? It was claimed he had a love affair with the man. I never understood why such a large leap can even make sense. That to me was opinion after many people felt that Obama was weak in the leadership category. How that translates to playing kissy face with the Putin is beyond me.

Leaders in the past respected their foes, but that doesn't translate to even liking them. Now, Trump wants to find some type of common ground so they can help with the fight against Isis. Is that possible? Personally, I think that is wishful thinking.

From what I have read Putin has high approval ratings with his people. We have a very different culture compared to that country, and our experiences are very different. Those approval ratings do need to be taken into account when dealing with them to a point. I think they want to go to war about as much as we do. I'm sure they remember once upon a time in history when the cold war happened as well. They want a future for their children, and care about many of the same things we do.

I took Trump's stance towards Putin as realizing he will have to work with this man no matter what. Going into circumstances in which he knows that the President thinks he is the communist devil? You are starting from a couple steps backwards, before you can even start.

It's popular here to rage about them, etc. USA can be a fickle people. When Romney said something during a campaign about Russia? He was mocked. They are no threat, and isn't he stupid to think they are type of response. Now, that a different reality is here? He is suppose to take the opposite approach otherwise he is in a love affair with the man. Putin is a strong leader, and I have no love for him at all.

When people seem to think he is trying to normalize him or what have you? Could be that is their approach to life, or how their mind works. Most people don't jump to suspicious feelings towards a country to thinking they are best thing since sliced bread due to statements from a President. I realize the fickle nature of politics today is all the rage...but it is also quite a leap to think majority of the population actually works that way.

If we can have some sort of cautious relationship with this country without so much fear? I don't see anything wrong that. Seeing them in a normalized way? That's a stretch. I will always view them with suspicion.

 

[HannahT]

Not saying that he didn't say it (I know he did), but he wasn't Obama's press secretary when he said it.

I would expect (or at the least, I would certainly hope), that if he had been, Obama would've promptly fired him. That's what happens when you expect more from your government than from, for example, Putin's.

Oh please. He would have wagged his finger at him, and that's about it. You don't fire your press secretary for something like that. Just because the media had a cow doesn't mean you need to jump that far. I liked Gibbs personally.

 

[TLK Valentine]

And that's an inductive fallacy. I think Trumps a blowhard, ignorant... well, I can't go in to what else I think he is. But even a broken clock is right twice a day.

You think he's an ignorant blowhard (believe me, I'm right there with you) -- but you're still defending him... this time.

Tomorrow you probably won't, but we're not talking about tomorrow, are we?

If I had gone in to more specifics, this thread would have gone horribly off-topic and then someone would have Godwinned it into oblivion.

There's no need to go into specifics...

Our government has done some pretty shady and underhanded things... nobody's disputing that.

Every government has done some pretty shady and underhanded things... nobody's disputing that, either.

However, some governments have done absolutely horrific and reprehensible things, and while we may not be perfect (or close to it), we are better than they are.

Can we agree on that?

Supporters of different governments do and have, and many governments refuse to acknowledge their past mistakes, like America and Russia.

Can we at least acknowledge the difference between a mistake and an atrocity?

And what would Trump gain if he needlessly began antagonizing Putin? What does any government gain from poking the Russian bear?

What do we gain by feeding it?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm gonna say this now: CF really needs to do something about making the split in posts easier when you reply vs quote someone's post.
Anywho...

You think he's an ignorant blowhard (believe me, I'm right there with you) -- but you're still defending him... this time.

Tomorrow you probably won't, but we're not talking about tomorrow, are we?

No, fair point. As I said though "a broken clock is right twice a day".

There's no need to go into specifics...

Our government has done some pretty shady and underhanded things... nobody's disputing that.

Every government has done some pretty shady and underhanded things... nobody's disputing that, either.

However, some governments have done absolutely horrific and reprehensible things, and while we may not be perfect (or close to it), we are better than they are.

Can we agree on that?

Agreed.

Can we at least acknowledge the difference between a mistake and an atrocity?

But when a government does not acknowledge something as a mistake and tries to wave it off, that is sketchy.

What do we gain by feeding it?

Is this technically feeding it though, because to me, this just seems like someone praising it's fur from afar.
And I think that's all the metaphors I can out of that.

 

[TLK Valentine]

But when a government does not acknowledge something as a mistake and tries to wave it off, that is sketchy.

Agreed -- but again, it depends on what they're trying to wave off.

If our government loses $10 million and tries to pass it off as a "clerical error," that's sketchy.

If Saddam had tried to pass off his gassing of the Kurds as "air pollution," I don't think "sketchy" is quite going to cover it.

Is this technically feeding it though, because to me, this just seems like someone praising it's fur from afar.
And I think that's all the metaphors I can out of that.

Well, that's just it -- we don't actually know if it's from "afar." If we knew (for example, from tax records) that Trump wasn't in Putin's pocket, I'd be more inclined to believe it.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Oh please. He would have wagged his finger at him, and that's about it. You don't fire your press secretary for something like that. Just because the media had a cow doesn't mean you need to jump that far. I liked Gibbs personally.

Nevertheless, there would have been some kind of consequence...

Obama might have wagged his finger at Gibbs; Trump would have blasted the media. See the difference?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Agreed -- but again, it depends on what they're trying to wave off.

If our government loses $10 million and tries to pass it off as a "clerical error," that's sketchy.

If Saddam had tried to pass off his gassing of the Kurds as "air pollution," I don't think "sketchy" is quite going to cover it.

Yeah, I couldn't think of a better word than 'sketchy'. But I get your point.

Well, that's just it -- we don't actually know if it's from "afar." If we knew (for example, from tax records) that Trump wasn't in Putin's pocket, I'd be more inclined to believe it.

Is this a scenario you came up with or this is another claim about Trump that's going around again?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Is this a scenario you came up with or this is another claim about Trump that's going around again?

It's circumstantial, but it's been going around.

Putin has a history of backing (financially and otherwise) hard-Right candidates in Europe who want out of NATO. Trump himself was a hard right candidate who wants out of NATO.

Donald Trump is in debt, but has been blackballed by western banks -- Funny thing; brag about bankruptcy as a shrewd business move, and they won't give you a dime.

Putin owns the largest oil company in Russia, and was in the process of a $500 billion deal with Exxon, which Obama put the brakes on via sanctions... after which, the DNC hacking began, which 17 separate US agencies say Russia had a hand in, but Trump refuses to believe.

James Comey, as director of the FBI, brought the information to Senate Majority leader McConnell, who ordered him to keep it quiet. So instead, Comey announced, days before the election, new investigations... into Clinton.

Mitch McConnell's wife is now Trump's Secretary of Transportation. Rex Tillerson, Exxon CEO, is now Trump's Secretary of State.

These could all be coincidences... Trump releasing his tax returns would prove it. Of course, Trump claims that his tax returns are far too complex to be properly understood... he needn't worry. There are forensic accountants who are skilled at unraveling even the most complicated of tax filings.

But of course, none of this is forthcoming... just one coincidence piled up on another.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It's circumstantial, but it's been going around.

Putin has a history of backing (financially and otherwise) hard-Right candidates in Europe who want out of NATO. Trump himself was a hard right candidate who wants out of NATO.

Donald Trump is in debt, but has been blackballed by western banks -- Funny thing; brag about bankruptcy as a shrewd business move, and they won't give you a dime.

Putin owns the largest oil company in Russia, and was in the process of a $500 billion deal with Exxon, which Obama put the brakes on via sanctions... after which, the DNC hacking began, which 17 separate US agencies say Russia had a hand in, but Trump refuses to believe.

James Comey, as director of the FBI, brought the information to Senate Majority leader McConnell, who ordered him to keep it quiet. So instead, Comey announced, days before the election, new investigations... into Clinton.

Mitch McConnell's wife is now Trump's Secretary of Transportation. Rex Tillerson, Exxon CEO, is now Trump's Secretary of State.

These could all be coincidences... Trump releasing his tax returns would prove it. Of course, Trump claims that his tax returns are far too complex to be properly understood... he needn't worry. There are forensic accountants who are skilled at unraveling even the most complicated of tax filings.

But of course, none of this is forthcoming... just one coincidence piled up on another.

Hmm... I... can't really make a comment on this.

So would you say that this little meta-debate is at an end?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Hmm... I... can't really make a comment on this.

So would you say that this little meta-debate is at an end?

Probably for the best at this point.

(did I mention Trump's been vacillating about lifting the Russian sanctions? I bet I know which decision he'll eventually announce)

Anyway, those are the facts; draw whatever conclusions you wish from them.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Probably for the best at this point.

Indeed. Nice talking to you.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

And if I can prove that the Russian government was responsible for the deaths of every single journalist on the list, will you then accept the possibility that maybe, just maybe, we're better than they are?

Sure. Good luck...

See, that day for commemorating journalists you cited, that was proclaimed in honor of two journalists who were killed in the line of duty while covering the civil war in Yugoslavia. They were killed by Serbian militia. Besides, this was in 1991, long before Putin was anywhere near the reigns of power.

Also, if you look at the statistics, the murder of journalists was just as common under Yeltsin as under Putin, yet I never heard anybody accuse Yeltsin of killing journalists.

The double standard is there though. The press in our country always blames assassinations in the US on a "lone nut", whereas assassinations in Russia these days are always blamed on the Kremlin.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Also, if you look at the statistics, the murder of journalists was just as common under Yeltsin as under Putin, yet I never heard anybody accuse Yeltsin of killing journalists.

I never heard anyone praise Yeltsin as being better than our own president, either.

 

[wing2000]

...meanwhile, comrade Putin is demanding an apology from Fox News:

Russian President Vladimir Putin apparently thinks Fox News owes him an apology for the "insulting" questions Fox News host Bill O'Reilly posed to President Trump in an interview aired Sunday.

""We consider such words from the Fox TV company to be unacceptable and insulting, and honestly speaking, we would prefer to get an apology from such a respected TV company," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Monday.

Russia is demanding an apology from Fox News