Paul_Chance
The Watcher
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2011
- Posts
- 21,492
You and Paul Chance sure are hung up on letting Russia off the hook for the election interference aspect of the conflict, as related to this discussion about the legal definition of treason. You are aware that the Russian military invaded the Ukraine and was under sanctions by the U.S. and its [former] allies?
That does seem to add another dimension to this discussion, other than, "Everybody interferes with elections, so no big deal."
Oh absolutely aware - Ukraine, Crimea, Syria - all on Obama's watch of course, but definitely to be factored in the mix.
You are aware that the Obama admin refused to provide Ukraine with direct military assistance in either advisors or arms and that Trump has removed that barrier and we are actually arming and training Ukrainian forces now right?
You are aware that the Trump administration has expanded the sanctions against Russia and Russian individuals beyond the Obama sanctions, to such a degree that Bill Browder (a fierce anti-Putin critic) characterized them as "a bulls eye hitting Putin and his associates where it hurts"?
My point isn't pro-Trump or anti-Trump - it's about the importance of the rule of law, the importance of perspective and context, and how simply saying something like "it's treason", "it's war" doesn't make it so (no matter how many times someone says it).
The risk to the DNC is that, by creating a straw man that ultimately amounts to nothing in real terms, it does a disservice to the liberal cause and provides disincentive to swing voters who might be persuaded to swing back to the DNC.
Rather than expending a lot of energy on "Trump Bad" (hahaha that might be a good campaign slogan), the liberal cause would gain more by focusing more tightly on real world things. "Trump Bad" feels good, emotionally, but it's the slogan of the impotent and it's not going to persuade anyone.