Democrats and the media have made much of FBI allegations that Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential election (though evidence has been in short supply). Whether or not it’s true, you kind of have to laugh at the outrage considering the fact that the country that interferes the most in the internal affairs of other nations, including coups and invasions, is none other than the United States of America.
The U.S. Is Shocked Shocked Shocked! That Russia May Have Meddled With Our Election
14 Comments. Leave new
Meddling is for second rate countries.
The exceptional ONE destroys & plunders then blames inevitable repercussions on its innocent victims.
I, too, am shocked, Ted, at allegations that those dastardly Russians have meddled (or «interfered») in those sacred US presidential elections held last year (in which approximately 45 % of those eligible abstained from voting, either by choice or due to other reasons) ! How dare they be alleged to have performed such a dastardly deed – it’s the very same sort of effrontery they show by putting their country in the middle of all those US military bases ! Why wait for «evidence» – which may, in the nature of things, not be forthcoming – nuke ’em NOW !…
Henri
It’s just so hilarious when one considers our own history of meddling with the internal politics of other nations. Who could even count the number of elections we altered or prevented from occurring in the first place?
In this particular case, Ted, I’m not sure that «hilarious» is the most apt term ; all I managed when I saw your cartoon was a wry smile of recognition, rather than a guffaw. To my mind, US foreign policy does to humour and joy what a black hole does to light – nothing escapes….
Henri
Ted, Ted, Ted-
I find it hysterical (not to mention hypocritical), that you continue to tout a conspiracy theory as fact (the DNC rigged the primary) while coming up with another conspiracy theory (Every single person (and there’s a lot) who says the Russians interfered in our election is lying- just cause) to ignore actual election interference; especially when far more actual evidence has been presented for the latter than the former.
As for your cartoon, it’s amusing, but irrelevant. Nothing the government does in other countries invalidates American’s right to an election free from interference.
«Nothing the government does in other countries invalidates American’s [sic !] right to an election free from interference.» According to those who have investigated the matter, «Whimsical», the basis of morality – not only for members of H sapiens sapiens, but also for members of other Hominidae species – seems to be the notion of reciprocity. Your understanding of that simple fact seems to be as whimsical as your notion of English grammar….
Henri
Really, Henri?
“We hit them so they get to hit us?” Most of us outgrow that level of ‘morality’ well before we hit double digits in age.
Here’s the morality my mother raised me with: “Two wrongs don’t make a right”.
Would that yours had been as wise.
«Most of us outgrow that level of ‘morality’ well before we hit double digits in age.» Many, if not most people who have reached a certain age understand that such proclamations by those who outnumber all others combined in «wrongs» is merely self-serving hypocrisy. But not, of course, our dear «Whimsical», whose morality and understanding of what his mother was attempting to teach him, is alas, as faulty as his grammar….
Henri
@Henri
Obama says crimes in the past, like torture, should not be punished,that only future crimes should be punished.
Whimsical is confused by his misunderstanding of Obama as being other than a conservative ideologue.
He’s just another Crazy.
«Obama says crimes in the past, like torture, should not be punished,that only future crimes should be punished.» Who knew, Glenn, that Philip Kindred Dick had fans in such high places ? Of course, under these circumstances Mr Obama might want to reconsider his position on abortion ; Mr Dick considered it to be an act of murder…. 😉
Henri
@ Glenn –
“Obama says crimes in the past, like torture, should not be punished,that only future crimes should be punished.”
*
That concept has always presented a problem for me. Accordingly, once a crime is committed, it becomes a “crime in the past,” and thus should not be punished.
How does one punish a “future crime,” since it hasn’t occurred to date?
Quote: “Nothing the (US) government does in other countries invalidates American’s right to an election free from interference.”
Well, Whims, with that truly EXCEPTIONAL blather you have regaled us to a return well beyond any expectations for new lows of raw, aggressive blindness and breathtaking, brazen arrogance.
Just one favor when you have a moment: kindly explain, again, how the country can be pulled out of the crapper if ONLY 1) we are patient and 2) the Dems saturate the field with candidates who proclaim: “$15/hour is too good for YOU voters but I will NOT settle for less than $333,000/hr.”
I was educated in American schools, where I learned our schools are the Best in the World, because America is the Best in the World, the Greatest Force for Good in the World. (We know those foreign tests where American students do poorly are lies by a bunch of foreign propaganda agents.)
Obviously, the Axis had conquered all of Eurasia, and America single-handedly saved the world from the Axis. i know my history teachers couldn’t possibly have gotten that wrong.
The New York Times hates Trump. When a Democrat is in the White House, the Times follows US law: since the US is the Greatest Force for Good, everyone killed by the US military is, by definition, a war criminal, so Obama didn’t kill a single innocent civilian during his entire term of office. But the New York Times does NOT follow US law when a Republican is in office, so the women, children, and many of the men killed by Trump’s bombing were innocent civilians, and it’s Trump, not the great grandmothers and babies, who is the war criminal now. The bombing will continue, and the New York Times will continue to proclaim that all those killed on the orders of Democrat presidents must be war criminals, while those killed on orders of Republican presidents are mostly innocent civilians, and it’s the Republican presidents who are the war criminals.
If you read Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, the US doesn’t rig elections by running a TV station that demonises one candidate and hagiographs the one they want. The life expectancy for a candidate the US does not want is extremely limited, as well it should be.
As I learned in school, the legal, American definition of a ‘free, democratic nation’ is one where the president of the US approves of its head of state, and the definition of a ‘brutal dictatorship’ is any nation where the president of the US does not approve of its head of state.
And you can’t argue with a legal, American definition.
«And you can’t argue with a legal, American definition.» I never do….
Henri