HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #561  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2017, 8:03 AM
sunsetmountainland sunsetmountainland is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Another great post taking place from the best place on earth!
Posts: 1,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xelebes View Post
In light of recent events, the reason why we haven't seen a systematic rise in nativismis because Putin hasn't put any effort into Canada. Yet. Don't know why but I think he sees us as small fish and not a real threat and also sees us as harder to control geographically. Having Trump in the presidency is a big check but not quite a checkmate.
It is not the fact that Putin does not see us as a real threat or that we are a small fish. It has more to do with Justin Trudeau.

Putin would look very badly with a Kum ba yah hug from Justin Trudeau!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #562  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2017, 2:27 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 23,490
The G&M had a thoughtful op piece by an academic this week that relates to the topic of this thread. I could extrapolate from his comments that Canada can be "exceptional" (bad term) only to the extent we work at it, as there is nothing inherently exceptional about our country (or any other).

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opini...ticle33619408/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #563  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2017, 5:01 AM
Loco101's Avatar
Loco101 Loco101 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Timmins, Northern Ontario
Posts: 7,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xelebes View Post
In light of recent events, the reason why we haven't seen a systematic rise in nativismis because Putin hasn't put any effort into Canada. Yet. Don't know why but I think he sees us as small fish and not a real threat and also sees us as harder to control geographically. Having Trump in the presidency is a big check but not quite a checkmate.
We don't directly or indirectly elect our head of state which could be a big factor. Also, there isn't the same sensationalism in Canada that you find in other countries when it comes to politics.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #564  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2017, 5:22 AM
Xelebes's Avatar
Xelebes Xelebes is offline
Sawmill Billowtoker
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Rockin' in Edmonton
Posts: 13,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loco101 View Post
We don't directly or indirectly elect our head of state which could be a big factor. Also, there isn't the same sensationalism in Canada that you find in other countries when it comes to politics.
All of that is true, but there is no panic like there is in Europe and the US. And a large part of that panic is the financial resources and military might of Russian intelligence to upend the elections there. The French election is gathering storms as European intelligence services are pressing the alarm about Marine Le Pen and the money and resources being piled into her campaign.
__________________
The Colour Green
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #565  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2017, 5:32 AM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Quebec
Posts: 42,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwoldtimer View Post
The G&M had a thoughtful op piece by an academic this week that relates to the topic of this thread. I could extrapolate from his comments that Canada can be "exceptional" (bad term) only to the extent we work at it, as there is nothing inherently exceptional about our country (or any other).

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opini...ticle33619408/
Hmmm, as has been argued in the SSP Canada section many times, not all Western democracies have the benefit of not having "bad" neighbors or even just a reasonably travelable land/sea connection to such places (like Western Europe does).

That's a big inherent advantage right there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #566  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2017, 8:52 PM
geotag277 geotag277 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xelebes View Post
All of that is true, but there is no panic like there is in Europe and the US. And a large part of that panic is the financial resources and military might of Russian intelligence to upend the elections there. The French election is gathering storms as European intelligence services are pressing the alarm about Marine Le Pen and the money and resources being piled into her campaign.
Part of what has me scratching my head in the sea of this vast conspiracy aka over politicization of certain world powers putting their resources into influencing other countries, is that I am rather amazed so much has been written about Russia and not a peep about China. China is constantly hacking everything and has way more financial and human resources spread out all over the globe.

Today it is impossible to separate the politicization of elections (democrats having an embarrassing loss in the US presidential election and the correlated politicization of the dangers of Russia) from real global concerns.

But I think people can rest easy that in democracies, money and resources really can't buy elections. Meg Whitman famously spent hundreds of millions trying to be the Governor of California and lost. Trump himself spent a fraction of what Clinton did, and much of it his own money to boot, and won. You cannot get elected in a democracy unless you have a message and a platform which resonates with the electorate, and that is ultimately why all these cries of "Russia!" (or, if in the future, someone says "China!") are a bit silly. Brexit would not have won if the British did not vote for it. Same with Trump. And same with Le Pen and others.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #567  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2017, 9:06 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
China is, rightly or wrongly, perceived as less of a threat... it doesn't express the same ambition that Russia typically does, its military is far less potent, it doesn't have a recent history of invading other countries and seizing their territory. Also, is there much in the way of evidence of China meddling in elections? I'm not saying China's hands are clean, but they appear to be focused much more inwardly than Russia.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #568  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2017, 9:36 PM
csbvan's Avatar
csbvan csbvan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by geotag277 View Post
Part of what has me scratching my head in the sea of this vast conspiracy aka over politicization of certain world powers putting their resources into influencing other countries, is that I am rather amazed so much has been written about Russia and not a peep about China. China is constantly hacking everything and has way more financial and human resources spread out all over the globe.

Today it is impossible to separate the politicization of elections (democrats having an embarrassing loss in the US presidential election and the correlated politicization of the dangers of Russia) from real global concerns.

But I think people can rest easy that in democracies, money and resources really can't buy elections. Meg Whitman famously spent hundreds of millions trying to be the Governor of California and lost. Trump himself spent a fraction of what Clinton did, and much of it his own money to boot, and won. You cannot get elected in a democracy unless you have a message and a platform which resonates with the electorate, and that is ultimately why all these cries of "Russia!" (or, if in the future, someone says "China!") are a bit silly. Brexit would not have won if the British did not vote for it. Same with Trump. And same with Le Pen and others.
It's almost like the intelligence community has evidence on Russia influencing the election or something....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #569  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2017, 11:29 PM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Quebec
Posts: 42,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by csbvan View Post
It's almost like the intelligence community has evidence on Russia influencing the election or something....
Everyone "influenced" the election. Mexico, for starters - surely you've seen some of the comments about Trump from that country's leadership throughout the summer and fall of 2016? Pretty sure I recall Angela Merkel making comments, too. Examples abound. And it's not the first time nor the last forces outside a given country get involved in something political that should normally be internal affairs.

American voters all voted freely, and the results were counted without any hacking or fraud or anything.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #570  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2017, 11:30 PM
geotag277 geotag277 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by csbvan View Post
It's almost like the intelligence community has evidence on Russia influencing the election or something....
This is a good piece of rhetoric that can be analyzed to show how political propaganda is propagating, even within Canada.

Look at the words used in this sentence. "Russia influencing the election" implies that Russia did something which caused Donald Trump to win, such that, without this Russian action, Donald Trump would have lost. This is what Democrats want you to believe, because it delegitimizes the fact their political opponents won the election(not just the presidency, mind you, but the house and the senate).

In actuality, the objective non-partisan way to frame this, is that Russia had a preference for which candidate won (no surprise, it was the one who wasn't sabre rattling with them), and there is evidence they used their resources to try to help one candidate win.

It's a nuanced distinction, but it is an important one. Did Russia take away control from the USA electorate on making a decision? No. Did Russia hack voting machines to give one candidate more votes? No. Did Russia undermine the self determination and choice that Americans can make for themselves by casting a vote for the candidate they want to lead the country? No.

This political propaganda being disseminated by the Democratic party is far more dangerous and does far more to undermine the legitimacy of American elections than anything Russia did (or could do) - and all because their political enemies won. Just goes to show you how desperate they are to set the country on fire over an, by all accounts, a fair and fairly won election.

And, to put an ironic twist cherry on top, these are the same people (Obama and Hillary and other Democratic leaders) who absolutely demonized Trump for daring to suggest in any way shape or form that election results can be called into question, which Hillary herself called the most dangerous threat to American democracy and the age old proud peaceful transition of power (back when she thought she would win of course).

It is getting harder and harder to be a rational Democrat with these types of shenanigans happening almost on a daily basis. I am speaking as someone who supported Bernie Sanders and wish the Democratic party could get their act together.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #571  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2017, 11:36 PM
geotag277 geotag277 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
Everyone "influenced" the election. Mexico, for starters - surely you've seen some of the comments about Trump from that country's leadership throughout the summer and fall of 2016? Pretty sure I recall Angela Merkel making comments, too. Examples abound. And it's not the first time nor the last forces outside a given country get involved in something political that should normally be internal affairs.

American voters all voted freely, and the results were counted without any hacking or fraud or anything.
I can almost guarantee the intelligence agencies only released any information on Russia because Obama and Hillary and other Democratic leaders were highly politicizing the hacking to the point where they needed a report so that "evidence can fit the political narrative".

If anyone is paying attention, it reminds me very much of the Downing Street memo, where it famously quoted "But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

The politicizing of these intelligence reports is something we should all be extremely concerned about, and you need to be truly objective when considering the information that is coming out of these intelligence agencies, especially when one party in particular is pushing for a certain political narrative.

Using loaded rhetoric and political propaganda such as "Russia influenced the election results" is, IMO, very damning of a person and indicative of an individual who clearly has partisan blinders on.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #572  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 12:07 AM
csbvan's Avatar
csbvan csbvan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by geotag277 View Post
This is a good piece of rhetoric that can be analyzed to show how political propaganda is propagating, even within Canada.

Look at the words used in this sentence. "Russia influencing the election" implies that Russia did something which caused Donald Trump to win, such that, without this Russian action, Donald Trump would have lost. This is what Democrats want you to believe, because it delegitimizes the fact their political opponents won the election(not just the presidency, mind you, but the house and the senate).

In actuality, the objective non-partisan way to frame this, is that Russia had a preference for which candidate won (no surprise, it was the one who wasn't sabre rattling with them), and there is evidence they used their resources to try to help one candidate win.

It's a nuanced distinction, but it is an important one. Did Russia take away control from the USA electorate on making a decision? No. Did Russia hack voting machines to give one candidate more votes? No. Did Russia undermine the self determination and choice that Americans can make for themselves by casting a vote for the candidate they want to lead the country? No.

This political propaganda being disseminated by the Democratic party is far more dangerous and does far more to undermine the legitimacy of American elections than anything Russia did (or could do) - and all because their political enemies won. Just goes to show you how desperate they are to set the country on fire over an, by all accounts, a fair and fairly won election.

And, to put an ironic twist cherry on top, these are the same people (Obama and Hillary and other Democratic leaders) who absolutely demonized Trump for daring to suggest in any way shape or form that election results can be called into question, which Hillary herself called the most dangerous threat to American democracy and the age old proud peaceful transition of power (back when she thought she would win of course).

It is getting harder and harder to be a rational Democrat with these types of shenanigans happening almost on a daily basis. I am speaking as someone who supported Bernie Sanders and wish the Democratic party could get their act together.
Sorry, attempting to influence. Whether it happened or not is uncertain, and maybe always will be. Yet, that does not take away from the fact that outside interference in elections is dangerous. To minimize that is disturbing. I don't understand why it is that some on the end of the political spectrum formerly known as "the right" have been contorting themselves to downplay the danger of an international adversary attempting to use propaganda and hacking to influence elections in the U.S. and the rest of the Western world.

Why this trend is so disturbing is that it is illustrating how people have begun to place party identity above ideals and beliefs. A trend that will weaken democracy to the point where interference by foreign powers will become far too easy.

How else can you explain people in the Republican party being ok with the dropping of sanctions against Russia? A country that has been increasingly antagonistic to the U.S. and the West. Republicans quite recently, as of months ago, were vigorously anti-Russian. Similarly, we now have Republicans siding with someone who is attacking the intelligence community. This is a position that has credence in the Republican party? Certainly not as it used to be. Or how about the idea of disbanding or undermining NATO (apparently obsolete, ok, tell that to the more than 100 Canadian soldiers who died fighting for NATO in Afghanistan)? This is another idea that would have appalled Republicans just a few months ago.

Yet these policies are not being vociferously attacked by Republicans, as they strive to appease a man who just the other day said that Obamacare would be repealed and replaced with a single-payer healthcare system. How does this make sense? If you are a conservative or a hawk or a Reaganite, how do these policy positions make sense? They don't, unless the notion of politics as a competition of ideas has been entirely dissolved in favour of politics as a sport where you cheer for your team no matter what.

As an aside, you seem to be forgetting that it is not only Democrats questioning the connections between Trump's campaign and Russia. The Senate Intelligence Committee would not be opening an investigation if there were not at least some Republicans who supported it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #573  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 12:12 AM
whatnext whatnext is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 22,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by geotag277 View Post
This is a good piece of rhetoric that can be analyzed to show how political propaganda is propagating, even within Canada.

Look at the words used in this sentence. "Russia influencing the election" implies that Russia did something which caused Donald Trump to win, such that, without this Russian action, Donald Trump would have lost. This is what Democrats want you to believe, because it delegitimizes the fact their political opponents won the election(not just the presidency, mind you, but the house and the senate).

In actuality, the objective non-partisan way to frame this, is that Russia had a preference for which candidate won (no surprise, it was the one who wasn't sabre rattling with them), and there is evidence they used their resources to try to help one candidate win.

It's a nuanced distinction, but it is an important one. Did Russia take away control from the USA electorate on making a decision? No. Did Russia hack voting machines to give one candidate more votes? No. Did Russia undermine the self determination and choice that Americans can make for themselves by casting a vote for the candidate they want to lead the country? No.

This political propaganda being disseminated by the Democratic party is far more dangerous and does far more to undermine the legitimacy of American elections than anything Russia did (or could do) - and all because their political enemies won. Just goes to show you how desperate they are to set the country on fire over an, by all accounts, a fair and fairly won election.

And, to put an ironic twist cherry on top, these are the same people (Obama and Hillary and other Democratic leaders) who absolutely demonized Trump for daring to suggest in any way shape or form that election results can be called into question, which Hillary herself called the most dangerous threat to American democracy and the age old proud peaceful transition of power (back when she thought she would win of course).

It is getting harder and harder to be a rational Democrat with these types of shenanigans happening almost on a daily basis. I am speaking as someone who supported Bernie Sanders and wish the Democratic party could get their act together.
Wow talk about splitting hairs and grasping at straws to minimize the consequences of Russian interference. I'm not sure what leads to your jonesing for Trump but the facts are a foreign power influenced the American election outcome.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #574  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 12:14 AM
csbvan's Avatar
csbvan csbvan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
Everyone "influenced" the election. Mexico, for starters - surely you've seen some of the comments about Trump from that country's leadership throughout the summer and fall of 2016? Pretty sure I recall Angela Merkel making comments, too. Examples abound. And it's not the first time nor the last forces outside a given country get involved in something political that should normally be internal affairs.

American voters all voted freely, and the results were counted without any hacking or fraud or anything.
We are talking about a foreign power (Russia for Christ's sake) hacking political parties in the West and funneling resources into creating large amounts of misinformation in an attempt to influence and undermine the democratic process.

The fact that to you this is comparable to Merkel "making comments", or the Mexican government being bewildered about being told they have to pay for a wall that they have nothing to do with, shows how partisanship has supplanted common sense.

Nuts.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #575  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 1:04 AM
geotag277 geotag277 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by csbvan View Post
I don't understand why it is that some on the end of the political spectrum formerly known as "the right" have been contorting themselves to downplay the danger of an international adversary attempting to use propaganda and hacking to influence elections in the U.S. and the rest of the Western world.
I don't know why some on "the left" are contorting themselves to push a clearly partisan political narrative. In 2012 Democrats rallied around Obama when he told Mitt Romney that "the 1980s called and they want their foreign policy back" , and now in 2016 they are so deathly scared of Russia because Hillary Clinton told them to be. Democrats rallied around Hillary when she said that challenging election results was the most dangerous thing for Americans to do, and then turned around and undermined the election results with this Russian political narrative.

I find it absurd that anyone would attempt to characterize the Republicans as the ones contorting at all. Again, partisan blinders.

And by the way, it is not about downplaying hacking or "foreign involvement" in elections, it is about being objective regarding the politicization of intelligence and political narratives. See my Downing Street memo example.

Why don't intelligence agencies publish all they know about all countries being involved in all aspects of American domestic concerns? Where are the detailed reports of China, Germany, Britain, and others hacking (which happens all the time)? A Russian report on hacking only makes sense in context, and we don't have the context of other countries hacking, because intelligence agencies haven't been politically strong armed to release that information because it doesn't fit a political narrative.

Quote:
Originally Posted by csbvan View Post
Why this trend is so disturbing is that it is illustrating how people have begun to place party identity above ideals and beliefs. A trend that will weaken democracy to the point where interference by foreign powers will become far too easy.
Based on your other comments, this comes across as absurd crocodile tears over partisanship, when you are the one disseminating political propaganda.

If you were truly objective, you would choose your words far more carefully.

Quote:
Originally Posted by csbvan View Post
How else can you explain people in the Republican party being ok with the dropping of sanctions against Russia? A country that has been increasingly antagonistic to the U.S. and the West. Republicans quite recently, as of months ago, were vigorously anti-Russian. Similarly, we now have Republicans siding with someone who is attacking the intelligence community. This is a position that has credence in the Republican party? Certainly not as it used to be. Or how about the idea of disbanding or undermining NATO (apparently obsolete, ok, tell that to the more than 100 Canadian soldiers who died fighting for NATO in Afghanistan)? This is another idea that would have appalled Republicans just a few months ago.
Again, these are crocodile tears about partisanship. Again, I will reference the Downing Street memo as a case where Democrats thought they had a smoking gun of "intelligence fitting the policy". Based on the information released so far, I believe everybody should be highly skeptical of the way intelligence agencies are being politicized to fit a narrative right now. It is OK to be skeptical of intelligence agencies only when the political party you support benefits.

Regarding foreign policy with Russia, Trump has made it part of his platform that he would like America to be friendly with Russia, insofar as it makes sense for America and helps further America's foreign policy (ie. against ISIS).

Your incredulous cries about being friendly with Russia strongly echo sentiment in the 70s regarding Nixon normalizing relations with China, a similar foreign "enemy" of the day. China does some bad things, China continues to do some bad things, China continually asserts their control over more and more areas, in fact, we may be reaching a point where China has more ability to influence foreign policy through sanctions than even the United States, at least in certain areas of the world. Has normalizing relations with China been a mistake? Impossible to say, but by economically intertwining China with Western economies, I do think has done wonders for ensuring a level of peace that might not have been otherwise possible. It is rational to think the same might be true of Russia, and that in 40 years, your comments will just be a footnote of history similar to those comments made in the 70s against China.

Quote:
Originally Posted by csbvan View Post
Yet these policies are not being vociferously attacked by Republicans, as they strive to appease a man who just the other day said that Obamacare would be repealed and replaced with a single-payer healthcare system. How does this make sense? If you are a conservative or a hawk or a Reaganite, how do these policy positions make sense? They don't, unless the notion of politics as a competition of ideas has been entirely dissolved in favour of politics as a sport where you cheer for your team no matter what.
The American electorate sent a very strong message that they endorse Trump's platform. Republicans are falling into line because if they challenge his platform, they will be going against the will of their constituents. How does this not make sense to you? That's how elections work. The people vote for a platform, and in 2016, just like in 2008, they voted for change.

You can either frame politicians as being hypocritical opportunists, or strong advocates for their dynamically changing constituency (funny how whatever labels you use tend to follow from whatever partisan side you are on, remember when Obama and Clinton were against gay marriage?) - but the fact remains these people will be held accountable through the American electorate in future elections. They cannot act in a manner that contradicts the will and desire of their constituency and retain their jobs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by csbvan View Post
As an aside, you seem to be forgetting that it is not only Democrats questioning the connections between Trump's campaign and Russia. The Senate Intelligence Committee would not be opening an investigation if there were not at least some Republicans who supported it.
You seem to be forgetting that Trump himself wants a full investigation as well. I look forward to the elected officials handling it and hopefully the stoppage of leaked overly politicized classified information being used as partisan weapons of mass destruction to hypocritically undermine elections.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #576  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 1:48 AM
csbvan's Avatar
csbvan csbvan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,971
Quote:
And by the way, it is not about downplaying hacking or "foreign involvement" in elections, it is about being objective regarding the politicization of intelligence and political narratives. See my Downing Street memo example.

Why don't intelligence agencies publish all they know about all countries being involved in all aspects of American domestic concerns? Where are the detailed reports of China, Germany, Britain, and others hacking (which happens all the time)? A Russian report on hacking only makes sense in context, and we don't have the context of other countries hacking, because intelligence agencies haven't been politically strong armed to release that information because it doesn't fit a political narrative.
It is very much about downplaying hacking and foreign involvement. We are not here arguing about whether Donald Trump won the election. There is legitimate concern about Russian interference in Western elections. Should we be O.K. with a foreign government interfering in elections by way of propaganda and cyber espionage, but then draw the line at foreign governments donating money to political parties?

Quote:
Based on your other comments, this comes across as absurd crocodile tears over partisanship, when you are the one disseminating political propaganda.
"You're fake news!"

Quote:
Again, these are crocodile tears about partisanship. Again, I will reference the Downing Street memo as a case where Democrats thought they had a smoking gun of "intelligence fitting the policy". Based on the information released so far, I believe everybody should be highly skeptical of the way intelligence agencies are being politicized to fit a narrative right now. It is OK to be skeptical of intelligence agencies only when the political party you support benefits.
It seems to me that you are the one politicizing the intelligence agencies, wrapping them up in some vast Democratic conspiracy. I am talking about the reality of Russia increasingly attempting to influence elections. In the U.S. election, it involved hacking American institutions. Both political parties. That is severe. It jeopardizes American sovereignty. To brush that off is dangerous. To reward Putin for doing it by warming relations and dropping sanctions is outrageous.

Quote:
Regarding foreign policy with Russia, Trump has made it part of his platform that he would like America to be friendly with Russia, insofar as it makes sense for America and helps further America's foreign policy (ie. against ISIS).
Please, tell me more about how dismantling NATO helps further America's foreign policy.

Quote:
Your incredulous cries about being friendly with Russia strongly echo sentiment in the 70s regarding Nixon normalizing relations with China, a similar foreign "enemy" of the day. China does some bad things, China continues to do some bad things, China continually asserts their control over more and more areas, in fact, we may be reaching a point where China has more ability to influence foreign policy through sanctions than even the United States, at least in certain areas of the world. Has normalizing relations with China been a mistake? Impossible to say, but by economically intertwining China with Western economies, I do think has done wonders for ensuring a level of peace that might not have been otherwise possible. It is rational to think the same might be true of Russia, and that in 40 years, your comments will just be a footnote of history similar to those comments made in the 70s against China.
Obama was attacked for this very thing. Attempting to normalize relations with Russia. And then Russia invaded the Ukraine. And now they are hacking democratic institutions in the West and attempting to subvert NATO. I think that it has been made very clear by Russia that there will be no normalization unless it is on their terms.

One thing that I can sense from your post is that you do not seem to have a problem with rewarding Russia for acting antagonistic. I cannot imagine that you are a foreign policy realist.

Quote:
The American electorate sent a very strong message that they endorse Trump's platform. Republicans are falling into line because if they challenge his platform, they will be going against the will of their constituents. How does this not make sense to you? That's how elections work. The people vote for a platform, and in 2016, just like in 2008, they voted for change.

You can either frame politicians as being hypocritical opportunists, or strong advocates for their dynamically changing constituency (funny how whatever labels you use tend to follow from whatever partisan side you are on, remember when Obama and Clinton were against gay marriage?) - but the fact remains these people will be held accountable through the American electorate in future elections. They cannot act in a manner that contradicts the will and desire of their constituency and retain their jobs.
"Very strong message" is somewhat of an exaggeration, but I get your point. I, however, think that it does a disservice to the public for politicians to believe in one thing and preach that thing (for example being hawkish with respect to Russia) and then do a complete 180 because you won the election with a confused, muddied and essentially non-existent foreign policy message. The strange thing is, I don't remember many Republican Congressman or Senators running on a policy of dropping the sanctions against Russia and disbanding NATO. They did not win their Congressional seats or their seats in the Senate by reversing their past policy positions. You cannot state that the electorate voted them in for that reason.

Quote:
You seem to be forgetting that Trump himself wants a full investigation as well. I look forward to the elected officials handling it and hopefully the stoppage of leaked overly politicized classified information being used as partisan weapons of mass destruction to hypocritically undermine elections.
He wants a full investigation, and yet he is undermining the intelligence agencies and bizarrely equating them to "Nazi Germany" (I honestly cannot believe I am writing that....or that someone is defending it).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #577  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 2:23 AM
geotag277 geotag277 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by csbvan View Post
Should we be O.K. with a foreign government interfering in elections by way of propaganda and cyber espionage, but then draw the line at foreign governments donating money to political parties?
Absolutely not, but I think it is incredibly naive and disingenuous to assume this is the first ever instance of a foreign government hacking something or meddling in elections, and furthermore I think it is helpful to recognize that this particular instance of meddling has been overly politicized, which is something we should be cautious of as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by csbvan View Post
"You're fake news!"
This does not follow at all, and is an absurd response to the challenge that you are disseminating political propaganda.

Quote:
Originally Posted by csbvan View Post
It seems to me that you are the one politicizing the intelligence agencies, wrapping them up in some vast Democratic conspiracy. I am talking about the reality of Russia increasingly attempting to influence elections. In the U.S. election, it involved hacking American institutions. Both political parties. That is severe. It jeopardizes American sovereignty. To brush that off is dangerous. To reward Putin for doing it by warming relations and dropping sanctions is outrageous.
Again, this rather naive incredulous assumption that it is "severe" and "totally destructive to a functioning democracy" that any foreign power would dare attempt to "hack" domestic institutions. If we are being honest it happens all the time, America does it. Germany does it. Canada does it. China and Russia do it. All countries need to increase their defense against cyber intrusions, and that's pretty much the end of it. The fact is it has been happening since the invention of the internet several decades ago, and furthermore on a related point it is absurd that institutions like the DNC and RNC want to have special status as "private" political entities responsible for their own operations (and security) yet if they are compromised it is paramount to undermining the entire electoral process. Give me a break.

Quote:
Originally Posted by csbvan View Post
Please, tell me more about how dismantling NATO helps further America's foreign policy.
Again, not choosing your words carefully and sensationalizing things. Do you get paid to do this? If not, you should.

He never called for dismantling NATO, only that countries were not paying their fair share of defense money (which is prescribed in agreement), and furthermore that NATO was designed decades ago as a cold war-era alliance and could be significantly modernized for the current world, which sees threats of terror as more severe and common and widespread than the specter of Russia (as is already happening).

Quote:
Originally Posted by csbvan View Post
Obama was attacked for this very thing. Attempting to normalize relations with Russia. And then Russia invaded the Ukraine. And now they are hacking democratic institutions in the West and attempting to subvert NATO. I think that it has been made very clear by Russia that there will be no normalization unless it is on their terms.
I think much of that failure falls on the shoulders of figures like Obama and Hillary who were in the driver's seat and failed to effectively manage threats like ISIS. Personally I think it was wrong to sanction Russia over Crimea (an incredibly strategic area that has historically been part of Russia and is majority Russian and IMO would assuredly vote to join Russia over Ukraine) - which is where things really fell apart. MH17 and Russian troops in Eastern Ukrainian territory is another story, but I think it is questionable that would have happened if tough sanctions were not already imposed for the Crimea, because at that point Russia had little to lose.

In any case, we may disagree on the history and response and correct actions to the Obama-era "Russian reset", but it is disingenuous to suggest that since Hillary and Obama failed, that such a normalization is absolutely impossible - implying that Hillary and Obama are the absolute masters of foreign relations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by csbvan View Post
One thing that I can sense from your post is that you do not seem to have a problem with rewarding Russia for acting antagonistic. I cannot imagine that you are a foreign policy realist.
I support a strong stance against Russia where it makes sense, and Trump has made it clear it does as well. He mainly wants to be friendly with Russia to stop ISIS, for example, where Russia has been much tougher than American forces. Twisting that into "supporting/rewarding Russia aggression" is more partisan political propaganda.

Quote:
Originally Posted by csbvan View Post
"Very strong message" is somewhat of an exaggeration, but I get your point. I, however, think that it does a disservice to the public for politicians to believe in one thing and preach that thing (for example being hawkish with respect to Russia) and then do a complete 180 because you won the election with a confused, muddied and essentially non-existent foreign policy message. The strange thing is, I don't remember many Republican Congressman or Senators running on a policy of dropping the sanctions against Russia and disbanding NATO. They did not win their Congressional seats or their seats in the Senate by reversing their past policy positions. You cannot state that the electorate voted them in for that reason.
There is no contest more high profile than the presidency, and even Paul Ryan, one of the most vocal critics of Trump who was one of the first to distance himself from Trump during the election, said Trump was the reason republicans attained a majority in both the house and the senate. If Paul Ryan thinks people choose down ticket republicans because of Trump, and if republican congress people are getting in line behind Trump's message, I would temper that with the hypocritical allegations.

No individual congress person in the 2016 election had as large a platform to talk policy as Trump, and the American people knew what they were getting by voting for both Trump and down ticket republicans in large numbers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by csbvan View Post
He wants a full investigation, and yet he is undermining the intelligence agencies and bizarrely equating them to "Nazi Germany" (I honestly cannot believe I am writing that....or that someone is defending it).
There is no contradiction with wanting a full investigation and finding the current handling of intelligence lacking. Obama has put his people in power and extracted one type of report, and Trump will put his people into place and extract a report done his way. By overly politicizing the intelligence, as Democrats have done, it calls into question these intelligence agencies and how this intelligence is handled. Unfortunately, I believe the way Democrats have behaved, especially Obama and Hillary, to be far more dangerous compared to Trump's skepticism.

All that said, I found Trump's Nazi Germany comment to be fairly bizarre and indefensible. That said, I find people who criticize use of Trump's twitter to want to have their cake and eat it to, saying simultaneously that twitter is an absurd platform to discuss politics while at the same time holding every single Trump tweet as being the most important communication and overly analyzing them to death.

I personally don't think Trump spends too much time thinking about or writing the tweets, and their subsequent analysis should be limited in thought and scope to the 140 character limit that is afforded to each message - which is to say, not much.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #578  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 3:08 AM
csbvan's Avatar
csbvan csbvan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,971
Quote:
Absolutely not, but I think it is incredibly naive and disingenuous to assume this is the first ever instance of a foreign government hacking something or meddling in elections, and furthermore I think it is helpful to recognize that this particular instance of meddling has been overly politicized, which is something we should be cautious of as well.
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.

Quote:
This does not follow at all, and is an absurd response to the challenge that you are disseminating political propaganda.
Being concerned with Russia interfering, intensely, in Western elections is not disseminating political propaganda. You made a flippant statement, I gave you a stupid response in return.

Quote:
Again, this rather naive incredulous assumption that it is "severe" and "totally destructive to a functioning democracy" that any foreign power would dare attempt to "hack" domestic institutions. If we are being honest it happens all the time, America does it. Germany does it. Canada does it. China and Russia do it. All countries need to increase their defense against cyber intrusions, and that's pretty much the end of it. The fact is it has been happening since the invention of the internet several decades ago, and furthermore on a related point it is absurd that institutions like the DNC and RNC want to have special status as "private" political entities responsible for their own operations (and security) yet if they are compromised it is paramount to undermining the entire electoral process. Give me a break.
"It happens all the time" is an unsubstantiated answer that you just threw out there. I don't believe that I am the one who should be wearing the badge of naivety in this exchange.

Quote:
Again, not choosing your words carefully and sensationalizing things. Do you get paid to do this? If not, you should.
Descending into ad hominen attacks doesn't really do anything for your argument.

Quote:
He never called for dismantling NATO, only that countries were not paying their fair share of defense money (which is prescribed in agreement), and furthermore that NATO was designed decades ago as a cold war-era alliance and could be significantly modernized for the current world, which sees threats of terror as more severe and common and widespread than the specter of Russia (as is already happening).
NATO does fight terror, Afghanistan as a key example. It also is necessary to prevent Russian transgression in Eastern Europe. Saying that in the current world terror is a more severe threat than the specter of Russia is a very North American mindset. In much of Europe, Russia is absolutely a threat. And it is by far a more destabilizing threat than terror. If Russia, emboldened by what it did in the Ukraine, moves into other parts of Eastern Europe, such as the Baltics, that would be among the most destabilizing world events in the last several decades.

It is incredibly naive to think that the specter of Russia is not a threat to our NATO allies in Eastern Europe. NATO allies that fought in Afghanistan to defend the United States.

Quote:
I think much of that failure falls on the shoulders of figures like Obama and Hillary who were in the driver's seat and failed to effectively manage threats like ISIS.
Failing to deal with ISIS has nothing to do with Russia interfering in American elections.

Quote:
Personally I think it was wrong to sanction Russia over Crimea (an incredibly strategic area that has historically been part of Russia and is majority Russian and IMO would assuredly vote to join Russia over Ukraine) - which is where things really fell apart. MH17 and Russian troops in Eastern Ukrainian territory is another story, but I think it is questionable that would have happened if tough sanctions were not already imposed for the Crimea, because at that point Russia had little to lose.
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.

Quote:
In any case, we may disagree on the history and response and correct actions to the Obama-era "Russian reset", but it is disingenuous to suggest that since Hillary and Obama failed, that such a normalization is absolutely impossible - implying that Hillary and Obama are the absolute masters of foreign relations.
I didn't say that. I said that Russia has acted antagonistically (invading the Ukraine, attacking the US democratic institutions (!!)) and therefore normalization would be dangerous at this point. 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.

Quote:
I support a strong stance against Russia where it makes sense, and Trump has made it clear it does as well. He mainly wants to be friendly with Russia to stop ISIS, for example, where Russia has been much tougher than American forces.
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?

Quote:
Twisting that into "supporting/rewarding Russia aggression"
I said he was rewarding Russian aggression because he is discussing removing sanctions on Russia a) despite Russia continuing to occupy a part of the Ukraine and b) immediately after Russia has been implicated in electoral interference.

Quote:
is more partisan political propaganda.
That just diminishes your argument. You use "propaganda" flippantly to label other points of view.

Quote:
There is no contest more high profile than the presidency, and even Paul Ryan, one of the most vocal critics of Trump who was one of the first to distance himself from Trump during the election, said Trump was the reason republicans attained a majority in both the house and the senate. If Paul Ryan thinks people choose down ticket republicans because of Trump, and if republican congress people are getting in line behind Trump's message, I would temper that with the hypocritical allegations.
Nobody ever questioned the Republicans winning the House. He probably helped them win the Senate. That does not mean that the majority of people who voted for their incumbent representatives wanted them to suddenly cozy up to Russia.

Quote:
No individual congress person in the 2016 election had as large a platform to talk policy as Trump, and the American people knew what they were getting by voting for both Trump and down ticket republicans in large numbers.
American elections are not like Canadian elections. Local races are much more local.

Quote:
There is no contradiction with wanting a full investigation and finding the current handling of intelligence lacking. Obama has put his people in power and extracted one type of report, and Trump will put his people into place and extract a report done his way. By overly politicizing the intelligence, as Democrats have done, it calls into question these intelligence agencies and how this intelligence is handled. Unfortunately, I believe the way Democrats have behaved, especially Obama and Hillary, to be far more dangerous compared to Trump's skepticism.
That is awfully conspiratorial.

Quote:
All that said, I found Trump's Nazi Germany comment to be fairly bizarre and indefensible. That said, I find people who criticize use of Trump's twitter to want to have their cake and eat it to, saying simultaneously that twitter is an absurd platform to discuss politics while at the same time holding every single Trump tweet as being the most important communication and overly analyzing them to death.
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?

Quote:
I personally don't think Trump spends too much time thinking about or writing the tweets, and their subsequent analysis should be limited in thought and scope to the 140 character limit that is afforded to each message - which is to say, not much.
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?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #579  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 3:55 AM
geotag277 geotag277 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by csbvan View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by csbvan View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by csbvan View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by csbvan View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by csbvan View Post
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by csbvan View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by csbvan View Post
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).

Quote:
Originally Posted by csbvan View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #580  
Old Posted Mar 13, 2017, 2:23 AM
1overcosc's Avatar
1overcosc 1overcosc is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Kingston, Ontario
Posts: 11,452
Looking at how things are going over in Europe lately.. it's looking like this narrative of Canada as the sole holdout in a Western world consumed with nationalism and racism is not really a true narrative.

It's increasingly looking like right-wing populists are not going to be taking over Europe after all. Marine Le Pen has been losing ground considerably and polls show that in basically any second-round matchup she's massively behind.. instead, it's appearing increasingly likely that Emmanuel Macron, who is actually rather Trudeau-like (young, relatively inexperienced, very popular amongst youth, promising reform, championing multiculturalism and globalism), is going to be France's next president.

Similarly, in Germany the social democrats have gained considerably in the polls in the last few months and it's appearing likely that Angela Merkel could be replaced as Chancellor by Martin Schulz, a leftist who is massively pro-EU and has campaigned on even closer integration of European nations.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:22 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.