in your opinion, is the Democratic Party too Russophobic?

[mieastwick]

This is the thread where I ask for your opinion. I made sure to not ask it in this thread, but a bunch of you guys offered it anyway:
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=262338.msg5606914#msg5606914

Horus, there is no "just right" option because, firstly, nothing is ever perfect, and, secondly, I want you guys to state your own personal preference, not just rent out your brain to your party.

[Horus]

Where's the option for "just Russophobic enough"?

[DavidB.]

"Russophobia", like "Islamophobia", is a bullsh*t word.

[TDAS04]

No.

[Young Conservative]

No. They're just hypocrites about the entire issue.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Nowhere near enough. They should be more along the lines of the Organization for the Reconstruction of the Communist Party of Greece in regards to Russia.

[Crumpets]

Yeah, a bit. I think it's more liberal pundits than the Democratic Party that is driving this narrative, though. There's plenty of reason for concern over Trump's ties to Putin, though, and I think that should be the main point of attack.

[Sumner 1868]

Yes, and the party's nauseating idolatry of Canada and Western Europe needs to go as well.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Absolutely. Putin's not a good person, but the Democratic party needs to stop using him to deflect from how terrible they are, and work to be less terrible.

[ApatheticAustrian]

just starting to realize who is the biggest global enemy of liberals AND progressives.

putin is the kingmaker of the new holy alliance.

[Vosem]

They aren't Russophobic and the premise of this question is stupid. Being against Putinism (a point of view that even Donald fr**king Trump seems to be coming around to) does not make you Russophobic.

[America Needs R'hllor]

They aren't Russophobic and the premise of this question is stupid. Being against Putinism (a point of view that even Donald fr**king Trump seems to be coming around to) does not make you Russophobic.

This, Putinism is a dangerous blight on the world, but Russia is a great country with a great culture.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

go away eharding

[RI]

"Russophobia", like "Islamophobia", is a bullsh*t word.

Any "phobia" word that isn't an actual fear or aversion is a BS word.

[Technocracy Timmy]

go away eharding

It's so obvious to.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Their obsession with Russia is disturbing, but also this:

"Russophobia", like "Islamophobia", is a bullsh*t word.

[The_Doctor]

Not Russophobic enough. The Russian Federation needs to be broken up into pieces.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Hilariously over the top.

Not Russophobic enough. The Russian Federation needs to be broken up into pieces.

I'm sure the average Russian appreciates that sentiment.

[Beet]

Yes.

I noticed earlier today that, any time I read the comments on my Republican Congreswoman's social media accounts, at least one third of them contain slightly crankish references to Russian hacking.

Democrats have created a monster. The dumbest, most conspiratorial version of their claims is the one that seems to explain the most in the most easily understood terms, so of course that is what has gone viral among the marginally informed.

Everyone who tried to tell me that it really was worth carrying on about this was wrong. You may have had a nuanced and plausible account of what "Russian interference" meant, however tendentious and thinly sourced, but that's not what has spread. The street finds its own use for things, including ideas that purport to explain the unexplainable.

The Russian hacking story is more fundamental than Russia, hacking, or the election. It strikes at the very heart of our system of government, which is what the identity of this country is built on.

Since a core difference between autocracies and democracies is that in the latter, an opposition is allowed, it means there are always tolerated political differences within democratic societies. Obviously this leaves open the possibility that these differences can be exploited by third party autocracies to advance its own interests at the expense of the democracy, by pitting some factions against others. This leaves the democracy less able to defend its own interests as a whole. It is a fundamental, structural weakness of any system of government that tolerates opposition, unless there is some ironclad consensus within the democracy that "politics stops at the water's edge" or some version of that.

It means that, for instance, Thomas Dewey would not have passed intelligence to German troops in 1944 in order to bring about failure of D-Day to help him win the 1944 election. And that if there were serious allegations he or people in his campaign did, people would care and it would be taken seriously, and that the investigation would not be slow-rolled for partisan purposes. It sounds absurd, but this is the question being opened up, when factionalism causes American politicians to side with autocracies other the opposite party.

[mieastwick]

It strikes at the very heart of our system of government, which is what the identity of this country is built on.

Let the record speak for itself.
http://www.vox.com/world/2017/4/20/15376214/obama-emmanuel-macron-call-french-election
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/284790-nigel-farage-obama-helped-force-brexit
Russia is actually much more of a democracy than the United States, despite having much more electoral fraud than the United States, since it doesn't have the electoral college, half the Duma seats are elected by proportional representation, which the US doesn't have on any level, and the guy at the top is both elected and actually more powerful than the unelected bureaucracy. That doesn't mean I'm a fan of its system of government. I am a libertarian, not a big D Democrat or a small d democrat.

How do you suggest speech like Barack Obama's to Macron and the people of the UK be curtailed? Internet filters?

And Russia did not even endorse anyone in the 2016 race. The only problem you have is with public access to Hillary Clinton's Goldman Sachs transcripts. Sometimes, whenever I think I might be too cynical, I read something like this and remember I'm not nearly cynical enough.

[Crumpets]

Obama is a private citizen, and holds no official office. Who cares who he endorses, or talks on the phone with? And if it's somehow nefarious, why was the first action by one of the parties to post about it all over the place?

[The_Doctor]

Hilariously over the top.

Not Russophobic enough. The Russian Federation needs to be broken up into pieces.

I'm sure the average Russian appreciates that sentiment.

meh, if we did it Russia would cease to be a geopolitical threat and I have been among the most anti Russia poster on this forum.

[Phony Moderate]

The Democratic Party is one of Russia's most effective recruitment tools.

[Figueira]

The Democratic Party is not at all Russophobic, which is the right amount of Russophobia for me. BRTD does not represent the views of the Democratic Party.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

I don't think it's possible to be too Russophobic.