[geotag277]

Originally Posted by csbvan

If it has happened, it has obviously never been on this scale. I think the naive position would be to claim that this is normal.

At the end of the day the intelligence community is not going to provide context regarding the entire world attempting to hack the entire world. United States tapped Merkel's phone - do you think that happened in a vacuum? There are countless other examples of foreign powers spying on other foreign powers and this narrative that this is unprecedented and dangerously destructive comes across as political sour grapes.

I think a healthy level of skepticism is needed when major party figures like Obama and Hillary were heavily politicizing the intelligence during the actual race.

I personally doubt the intelligence community or relevant democratic members of Congress would have said anything at all if it hadn't been for Obama and Hillary pushing so hard for the narrative to undermine Trump's candidacy.

The politicization of all this is what is concerning. And there are inseparable parallels between what is happening now and the Downing Street memo. And furthermore I find the hyperbole regarding the "incredibly substantive influence of Russia on this election" to be garbage. Russia cannot buy votes. Not even Americans can buy votes (see: Clinton & Meg Whitman). Russia didn't hack the voting machines, they at most disseminated compromised TRUE! information from a private political entity (the DNC) who had substandard security measures.

The people of America made their choice, as they always do, with every country in the world weighing in, as they typically do.

This narrative that "US diplomatic institutions were incredibly compromised to an unprecedented level" is, yes, political propaganda meant to only de-legitimize their political opponents by taking the eye off the ball of actual democratic institutions (such as the DNC) caught red handed influencing and colluding with what were supposed to be fair presidential processes (such as the debates) and sabotaging their own candidates (such as Bernie Sanders).

It takes quite the Democratic party contortionist to gloss over all these violations of democratic institutions and say that the problem was Russia.

That's pretty much it. At this point we can agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by csbvan

Saying that in the current world terror is a more severe threat than the specter of Russia is a very North American mindset.

Well, yes, saying Russia is a bigger threat than terrorism is a very Eastern European centric mindset. As it relates to American elections, the American electorate sees terrorism as more important, and that is as far as the relevance to the presidential election goes - no propaganda needed.

Furthermore, Trump's point about NATO countries spending their fair share is correct, as this report shows only 5 countries meeting their spending targets, only 3 from Eastern Europe (if you include Estonia), and one of which (Greece) sees Germany as a far bigger threat to it's country than Russia:

http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/15/news...ing-countries/

It follows if NATO is so damn important to those countries (and Baltic states), you would expect funding to be there in spades. It isn't. So maybe they should pay up if they don't themselves believe that NATO is obsolete.

Originally Posted by csbvan

Failing to deal with ISIS has nothing to do with Russia interfering in American elections.

Failing to deal with ISIS relates to Obama and Hillary's failed foreign policy, especially as it regards to Russia, which was the topic of the conversation.

Originally Posted by csbvan

I don't really have a lot to say on this apart from the fact that it is a precedent setting move that instills fear in many countries in Eastern Europe (Poland, the Baltics, etc). It is your opinion on the matter that nothing should have been done, and that is fine. I do doubt that it is widely shared.

I think the response at the time to the Crimea issue emboldened Russia to take things a step further. I think it is not as black and white as it appears, but ultimately the failures regarding Russia over the past 8 years rest on the shoulders of Hillary and Obama.

Originally Posted by csbvan

It would encourage Russia to act antagonistically. The sanctions are crushing Russia's economy at the moment. That is an important deterrent to military adventurism.

There are no greater tools in the modern global economy than sanctions, and as such they should be used very carefully, when needed, forcefully.

Unfortunately the argument that Russian sanctions tempered Russian aggression do not really hold much water, as sanctions were completely ineffective in preventing further Russian aggression into Ukraine following the Crimea sanctions.

If Russian sanctions are to be maximally effective, Russia's economy needs to be heavily intertwined with Western economies. That is what makes the idea of a "Russian reset" necessary. Timing at this point, is everything, but I don't believe Trump will be going back into office and immediately removing all sanctions. He will negotiate with Russia and he is leaving the door open to Russia behaving to get it done. It is a far more pragmatic approach than many people are painting.

Originally Posted by csbvan

Russia invaded a neighbouring country and attacked U.S. democratic institutions. If it does not make sense to take a strong stance against Russia then, when does it?

The neighbouring country was invaded under Obama and Hillary's watch, and the sanctions were imposed by the outgoing government, and now is a time to get back to the negotiating table with Russia. I believe Trump was correct in that Putin outmaneuvered Hillary and Obama almost every step of the way in terms of foreign policy, and again, if you want to point to failures of diplomacy concerning Russia over the last 8 years, the figures in charge were Hillary and Obama.

Originally Posted by csbvan

That is awfully conspiratorial.

There is nothing conspiratorial about the politicization of intelligence, as documented in the Downing Street memo (not sure why you keep ignoring this).

Originally Posted by csbvan

He is the President. Everything he says means something. I know that you understand the importance of a President's words. It is not incongruous to both say that Twitter is not the platform for those words, and to criticize the words that he broadcasts on that platform, because it is essentially the only platform he uses. You're not proposing that people who do not like his use of Twitter should just ignore the policy positions and statements he throws out on the platform, are you?

When you are the President, everything you say means something. Foreign leaders are taking his tweets seriously, how else do you know where America stands on an issue if you are not to trust the words of the President?

To be clear, his "Nazi Germany" comment had nothing to do with any crazy policy. He was (rightly) complaining about classified intelligence reports being leaked to the press and politicized and incorrectly reported.

His words matter, but many of the people complaining about his twitter messages pick out a subset of the 140 character message (such as "Nazi Germany"), and loudly bang the drums in absurd ways that remove even the limited context twitter allows one to provide.

His comparison to Nazi Germany was bizarre, but his point was concerning leaking classified information to the press. That was the entire point of the tweet in question.

And it is absurd to suggest that twitter is the only form of communication the Trump administration uses. He and his surrogates regularly give media interviews.