Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnR
I am not surprised that is your response, that is the response a lot of well intentioned people have.
Here are some historical notes: choose to do with them what you will, but I would highly suggest you go over Russian history for the past 300 years. Russia has been lying, "hacking", influencing, and sabotaging other countries positions and governments, and when available elections, for over 300 years. It is what they do.
From the 1200s up into the times of the Great Game they did this to their nearby neighbors.
In the Great Game they conquered or stole or influenced their expansion south and east through the Caucuses, the Stans, the steppes, and eventually to the Pacific. They have played games with all of Europe, Asia before we even fought among ourselves.
From their revolution on they have been aligning with progressives and worker's parties in the US with varying levels of success, all the way up until heavy influence in the pre WW2 times and other than a small decade when they were licking their wounds, back again with the 60s through today.
This is what they do.
Frankly, I find it somewhat insulting that all of the people that complain about it now after ignoring it forever are often the same people that rush to McCain's defense now yet pilloried him prior to Trump.
I believe that when the Media, in lockstep with the Democratic party, makes a moderate with some level of integrity like Romney into the next Hitler, that we reap what we have sown. We have lost the middle, with both sides going more extreme and more and more out of balance. This looks like there is little chance to correct this imbalance. The future is terrifying.
Trump wasn't the cause, he was the result.
|
You're being reasonable and logical, which is not welcomed in the midst of partisan squabbles--certainly not welcomed in arguments fueled by hate and personal animosity.
I agree with all of what you said. Except I think that I "interpret" it a bit differently.
Yes, Trump was the result not the cause. But I look at the result as being a corrective, not just a continuance of rushing to a mad end.
And I see the "middle" to be different than what I gather folks on this forum who refer to it believe it to be. I don't think there is a middle between ideological extremes. Picking portions of each extreme just results in a variation of extremes. A variation that changes as extremes change.
For me, the idea of a constant ideological "middle" is that which doesn't change, but is the point from which extremes diverge. It is an unchanging principle, a foundation, upon which a society is founded. My notion of losing our "middle" would be abandoning that founding principle. We no longer agree to even consider that middle when we discuss politics, much less act on it.