Vietnam is a lousy equivalence. Our "meddling" in electoral activities there, to my knowledge, was largely in the form of saying we'd ignore election fraud. Now as to playing king maker in the subsequent military coups within South Vietnam, which by definition are not a democratic process, that's another matter.
I believe you miss the larger point. I believe what Donald was pointing out was the similarity of your reasoning to:
Russia did X to us.
We do X to ourselves.
We do X to other countries.
Therefore, Russia gets a pass on X
Only that isn't quite what I'm saying. Sure "something" should be done. But I think we're at a parting of ways as to what that "something" is that is to be done, or even what impact Russia's efforts had on things. Outside of the occasions where the US tacitly allowed "our side" to actively cheat the election ballot box itself, the intelligence services seemed to agree that the difference between helping and not helping in various other ways was typically only likely to swing the vote by a couple percentage points.
Of course, that then leads us back to this election cycle, where as Nate Silver demonstrated, a 1% vote shift in certain regions of the US meant a LOT for the Presidential race outcome. So it is entirely possible that "Russian meddling" contributed to a swing in voter behavior which made Hillary Clinton lose the race. However, I think Seriati made a very relevant point in regards to that, and I actually think that was more generally the Russian end game. While I do agree that Russia preferred a Trump win over a Hillary one, I don't think they actually expected Trump to win.
But before I move in Serati's post, I think a good to summarize it: Due to "Russian Meddling" I'm fine with the idea of this past election having been "tainted"
but that's a far cry from saying that it should be invalidated. It also continues to ignore that there are legal processes involved in the election of the President, and ultimately it is the Electoral College that matters, not the average voter. After the Electoral College was formed, cast its votes, and subsequently had their votes ratified by Congress, the chance for "A Mulligan" on the election was over. The Constitution is very clear about what the options are from here, outside of the Constitutionally provisioned means of action, you're now waiting for either 2018(if you want a Congress that might impeach Trump) or 2020(where you can try to just vote him out instead).
I hadn't noticed this before:What you really want to claim, though, is that something untoward was going on involving Trump and colluding with the enemy, and that's a completely different kettle of fish.
No. I very carefully stayed away from insinuating anything of the sort. That the Russian efforts seemed to be supporting Trump was clear, but the issue is not which side the Russians supported this go-around, but rather that they had effectively waged a war against your electoral system.
I think what you think is "clear" is not so clear. The Russian efforts seem to be targeted at two things, 1. undermining confidence in our democratic system and 2. undermining confidence in Hillary Clinton. The second point, however, is not the same thing as "supporting Trump." I don't believe for one second that the Russian's thought Trump's victory was any more likely than the rest of us. They expected Hillary to win, and it was as much a shock to them as to everyone else.
The Russian propaganda wasn't there to get Trump elected, it was there to taint President Hillary Clinton's administration. Their goal was to show that a flawed and manipulated process put a corrupt individual in the driver's seat of the United States illegitimately. They've been in salvage mode since the unanticipated election result to try and emphasize their first goal, and maybe still pivot on their second goal in reference to Trump.
Their campaign was targeted at a different result, the only reason it's worked at all is because of the Democratic unwillingness to believe the election results, which assumption colors every single thing they see in relation to the election. In effect, they believe the result impossible, therefore any explanation, no matter how unlikely that remains must be the truth. It's a misquote of Sherlock Holmes, and blatantly ignores Occam's Razor, but it's the only way to resolve the cognitive dissonance of Trump's election being impossible and yet having occurred.
Those previous two paragraphs warrant extra attention, but it does cycle back to 2016 was a very unique confluence of circumstances(and was more to do with Hillary herself than anything else). I had to re-read the final (quoted) one twice before I figured out what was being said. Changing emphasis around, and adding a bit:
Their(Russia's) campaign was targeted at a different result, the only reason it's worked at all is because of the Democratic unwillingness to believe the election results, which assumption colors every single thing they(Democrats) see in relation to the election. In effect, they(the Democrats) believe the result impossible, therefore any explanation, no matter how unlikely that remains must be the truth. It's a misquote of Sherlock Holmes, and blatantly ignores Occam's Razor, but it's the only way (for many Democrats) to resolve the cognitive dissonance of Trump's election being impossible and yet having occurred.
But getting back to the concession that it is entirely within reason to say that Russia's efforts resulted in a 1 point swing in Trump's favor. This goes back to the indifference side of things which you and others keep raging against.
For those that voted for, or otherwise are OK with Trump having won(against Hillary at least),
it doesn't really change anything to learn that Russia preferred Trump. It is totally and completely irrelevant to their criteria for why they personally supported or otherwise accepted Trump's win. It's tantamount to wanting to toss Bill Clinton out of office in 1996
purely on the grounds that China very clearly preferred that he remain in the White House. (There certainly were plenty of other reasons to want Clinton out, but even then, the Republicans certainly weren't going full out crazy like the Dems are over Trump)
The only thing that "matters" is the question of if Trump was actively working and collaborating with the Russian Government in an effort to either undermine the electoral system in the United States, or otherwise employ "dirty tricks" against Hillary Clinton (either at Trump's request, or with his knowledge). Also obviously in play is if Trump received
direct material support, which would be a no-no even if it came from Coca-Cola, never mind a foreign government.
But short of proof that Trump himself was working with the Russians in some direct way, there isn't really anything to do. Much like Coca-Cola can provide all the indirect support it wants to a candidate(thanks to the SCotUS), the Russians
acting independently of Donald Trump to support Donald Trump is not Donald Trump's "problem."
Unless you're going to say that candidates should be rendered ineligible should they be endorsed or otherwise supported by a foreign head of State. But if that is position, where were you in 2012? I don't remember you screaming about the press reports talking about the "international support" for President Obama from numerous foreign heads of state.
