These posters also coincidentally appear for Ukraine-related stories, never to be seen again.
5 Likes
I don’t think they find that unfortunate considering what they believe Putin is entitled to.
2 Likes
So I see the first point I was going to make was made by someone else. But just to add to it, if you look up the Nuremberg trials you will see the allies made the exact opposite point very forcefully.
Secondly, you have literally misused the word literally. I know that grammar isn’t my strong point but I do think it’s worth highlighting that, given you also accused me if insane rhetoric. Those people are dead because of that policy. If you don’t want collective responsibility for the policy then don’t vote for it.
Forgive the long links, but I included then because you asked me to. You wanted me to cite a source for the deaths. Well I don’t think it very controversial but it was kinda cute to be able to cite the candidate herself for at least one of the murders. I imagine you consider that murder justified. I take the somewhat self righteous position that murder is never justified and I don’t consider it a qualification for office. But let’s agree to differ.
My only point, for the nth time, is that it’s silly to say that HRC is a better FP candidate. Particularly given you refuse to point out one good thing she did as sec of state.
That doesn’t mean I am supporting Trump. But he is better, in my opinion, on FP and in the opinion of the foremost Russian scholar in the US.
For what little that is worth.
1 Like
I have heard the same thing. I also know people who work for the foundation and the private office. I’m sure she is very nice.
Of course. But self determination is a two way street. And ukraine is an odd political entity. Much of western ukraine add taken from the Austro-Hungarian empire. Eastern ukraine was historically part of Russia.
Now, you’re moving the goal posts. You specifically gave as your main concern the lack of local level political experience. I gave you four other male politicians’ CV and you don’t even mention Carter’s farmer to governor trajectory? Many political scientists/historians have argued that this was probably Carter’s biggest weakness and one that held him to one term. He had no knowledge of D.C. beltway politics, and even promoted this idea in his campaign.
Also, I’m not sure having to campaign for and win a primary is parachuting. She worked hard campaigning for a position and it wasn’t a sure thing. As a matter of fact, I remember a lot of resentment because she was FLOTUS and more specifically because the Clintons decided to live in New York. If you studied America politics as you say you do, you would know that nothing about that campaign was like a lofty parachute floating down to earth. She faced the same smear tactics and rhetoric that WJC had faced plus she was called a carpetbagger.
I can only come up with two possible conclusions: you don’t think an overly qualified female candidate should be president or you simply want to disqualify someone who has way more experience than previous presidents on the basis of being married to a President. Nothing is mentioned about her policies, with which there are many issues that I disagree.
10 Likes
Oh, it already moved the goalposts!
6 Likes
Who does your employer tell you that is, exactly?
7 Likes
Yes, you’re correct of course. Mental aberration, sorry.
Stephen Cohen. Princeton and NYU
1 Like
Wow, thanks! Looks like he’s definitely respected in his field and someone I can count on as an unbiased authority in Putin’s right and just goals to acquire the rest of Ukraine.
Is there a particular reason why sockpuppets are attempting to sell this plan to wider American Internet forums?
8 Likes
So first of all, Im not a sock-puppet. I would have thought it obvious but hey, perhaps you aint a native speaker of English yourself. Secondly, whats with the ad hominum attacks? You attack me as a sock puppet and you have utterly failed to engage with the actual argument. Cohen’s argument (the one you didnt get round to reading but just pasted up a Slate piece (yeah Slate is your authority!) was that HRC has a belligerent stance on Russia policy and its quite possibly a serious mistake. One that is worthy of democratic debate. But one that the US media has tried to shut down as quickly as it can by labelling anyone who mentions the massive heightening of tension between two nuclear powers as “Putinbots” or “Putin clients” or “In Putin’s pockets”. Why so keen to shut down the debate? Is Russia the enemy of the US? Since when?
The last time the US jingo-danced its way into an FP stance was Syria. The time before was Libya. The time before was Iraq. Which of these do you think of as working out well?
If it helps, Im fat and black as well as a Putin lover. Does that help your argument at all? If you are looking for some more options for ad hominem attacks. Either way, what do you hope to gain by telling me I am pushing Putin’s line? I mean, have you considered the possibility that Putin is right and you and the bulk of the US media is wrong? Would it really be the first time?
Once again, Trump is not much of a candidate. But if you want to defend US FP as practiced by the ex -Sec of State, why not actually highlight a success?
1 Like
Self-ascribed “African-American NYC UES resident” primary Russian speaker unused to American English grammar but that just happens to have created an account to shill for both Trump and a full Russian military takeover of Ukraine?
Me oh my!
9 Likes
“А у вас негров линчуют”
Why should I tolerate any of this? Do you believe that this sophistry is helping whatever slapdash, poorly organized Internet campaign?
3 Likes
- UWS
- Ad hominem means personal - you are attacking me not the argument. Thats cos you dont have a counter argument cos only a teen dweeb contents themselves with ad hominem arguments when they have one. Primary Russian speaker? You making up your own facts again? “Shill”? Thats just plain rude.
Russian military takeover of Ukraine? What?
You tolerate? Why would anyone care what you tolerate? “And they are lynching negroes in Russia”? Yes they are but they have way fewer to lynch. Be fair, where do you think lynching black people was invented? Oh I get it.
Troll
But really, couldnt you even try to debate? Is this evidence of the continued decline of educational standards in the US? Go on, give it a go. If you think you have a point.
I think we are talking about different things. You concentrate on her qualifications from a political-machinery point of view; I’m talking in terms of representing and building a feeling with the electorate in order to get elected. All the people you mentioned made their own breaks by campaigning and winning under their own names, then representing them in office; she didn’t. How is that contentious? It explains a lot of her continuous struggle to build a positive image, which is what I was trying to discuss at the beginning of this conversation, before I was summarily labelled a sexist trolley.
Campaigning in a safe Dem seat you have little historical connection with, starting with national name recognition you didn’t build yourself and with national party support… What is your threshold for using the word “parachuting”? Not all parachutes are smooth, but they are still parachutes.
That sexist smear says more about your preconceptions than my arguments. I surely wouldn’t be raising this sort of point against Elizabeth Warren, Barbara Boxer or Dianne Feinstein, who all have more linear careers. In fact, I think it’s disappointing that they never got a chance but an ex First Lady did. It takes a lot of the shine away from being the first female this or female that, and more like the first wife this or that, which is terrible from a feminist point of view.
It’s a different sort of experience (see above), but regardless - I do think that 1) she wouldn’t have had the breaks she had without her marriage and 2) an ex-president spouse running for President is overall bad for democracy, it smells nepotistic and reminds of the Kirchners and the Perons of this world. Which is likely part of why a lot of people hate her so much (again trying to go back to the original topic). Obviously it doesn’t “disqualify” anything or anyone, voters vote whoever they want (wrestlers, actors, media moguls etc), but I was asked to explain why it would have been easier to sell a Biden rather than Hillary, and I’m trying to explain some of the reasons I feel are key to that understanding.
1 Like
Things are bound to get weird and uncomfortable when you base your “X was historically part of Y” arguments in the golden age of empires. Is UK historically entitled to Ireland? Is Germany entitled to Austria, or is it the other way around? How do you sort out the claims between Denmark, Sweden and Norway? But why go small, Spain and Portugal are entitled to half the globe each after all.
Since we’re talking history… If you go as deep as it goes, you may as well argue that Russia is historically part of Ukraine, because the earliest state to which both countries trace their origins, Kievan Rus’, was centered in Kiev. But the distinction between Russia and Ukraine (as well as Belarus) emerges in the centuries between the fall Kievan Rus’ and the expansion of Russian Empire. In this time, one half of what was Kievan Rus’ consolidated around Moscow, while the other half (arguable the more important one, as it included the old capital and other significant population centers) became part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (and later the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth).
As part of Catholic Europe and its meta-national web of clergy, diplomats and nobility blood ties, the GDL experienced the development of Western thought - scholasticism, renaissance, reformation, enlightenment - and the accompanying development of art, architecture etc. more or less contemporary with Western Europe. On the other hand, the Muscovite Russia, remaining pretty much the only Orthodox country after the fall of Constantinople, basically stewed in its own juices culturally until Peter decided to westernize and went through the whole process on fast-forward in 18th century.
As Russia becomes ever more adamant about being the anti-Europe with ideologies such as Eurasianism, this part of history gets more important both to establish Ukraine (and, again, Belarus) as a distinct entity, and to form the argument for European (EU) integration, to belong together with Poland and Lithuania again.
4 Likes
No, you keep changing the debate. All my exanples (and many that I’ve left off) benefited from the political machinery that has been prevalent in American politics for ages.
I never labelled you as such.
Yes, I was the one who brought this up:
First, I didn’t make a sexist smear. I wanted you to tell me why a qualified well-qualified female candidate should automatically be disqualified based upon her marriage.
But you didn’t bring this up until this particular moment. Also, two of the three didn’t want to run for president, so I don’t get your point.
And there it is. I wondered how long it would take to link HRC to Eva Perón. Only problem is, EP’s support came from a different base. The only commonality, at this point, is that the two women were both married to previous leaders of their respective countries.
If nepotism is truly the focus, why don’t you say that and be done with it? However, you’re going to have to call out those Bush sons, JQ Adams, distant cousin FDR, and RFK, as well as Rand Paul and Al Gore, too. Unfortunately, this is the nature of American politics, and I’d agree that sometimes it limits unconnected individuals. But make no mistake, the political machinery is there to push the Carters, the Obamas, and the Eisenhowers, too.
6 Likes
I’d had a Facebook friend post a list of claimed HRC verbal abuses of Secret Service/security/staff, so I spent a while going down the rabbit hole. Most are from David Brock’s hit pieces on Clinton which he later admitted he invented while being paid handsomely by wealthy Republicans (as with his Anita Hill hit piece). There were also a few that were repeated cited by various books but ultimately pointed back to something that didn’t exist, didn’t say what they claimed at all, or were penned by Ann Coulter/Rush Limbaugh types with a habit of inventing convenient “facts.”
10 Likes
I’m sure if Russia invaded and annexed Alaska, the same justification would equally persuasive.
6 Likes
