If putin WAS/IS opposed to “globalism” for reasons similar to what “we” may have, then why the subterfuge?

Surely, he has other more legitimate means to work with other democracies vs hacking email systems and interfering with democratic elections?

Will never be convinced that an authoritarian regime of any sort is not a potential threat to our country or our allies’ – especially given Russia’s size, history, and putin’s actions, even within his own country’s borders.

Too much there to naively take putin as benign, who just happens to be “a man trying to resist globalism”.

Sorry, but citing things like obama “not showing up” to an Olympic Games ceremony, that is hardly stuff that would counter, say, how obama seemed to “let” Russia invade Ukraine (and without much consequence), and seemed to have “welcomed” (if not “invited”) Russia into Syria (despite the very predictable risk – that came to fruition).

putin is who he is, and perceived “disses” were hardly the motivation for the action he has taken. putin had a whole lot more strategy behind them.

obama’s laughing at Romney was not much different than his claim that ISIS was a “jayvee team”. It reflects his thinking, and underestimation of our foes.

Bottom Line: obama and his admin had consistently underplayed the seriousness of several threats, Russia being one of them.
.

WRT Russian action in our election, doubtful putin thought he was “helping” trump (like overwhelmingly most others, he probably calculated that clinton would win) as much as he merely wants to sow the seeds of discontent and distrust in the US (and the West).

He was very successful with these recent efforts.

Where we are distracted (as we have been in spades w trump), that takes our eye off of other things, opening the door much wider for Russia to maneuver.

That trump cannot say much negative wrt Russia nor putin, just reinforces that opportunity for Russia, and to putin.

AND, by my estimation, that sets trump up for the left to make a YUGE deal about possible links between him and Russia.
.

“Mr. Caldwell’s piece was unusual in that he tired to look at him from the standpoint of a man trying to resist globalism”

Of Course putin is “resisting globalism”!!!

Make no mistake, what he is fighting is a US / Western based “globalism”, and his is not anywhere near the reasons you may be against it.

He’d LOVE a Russian based “globalism”, as any authoritarian regime would.

It is as “interesting” (intellectually, or entertainingly) that trump hasn’t much to say crtically about Russia or putin, as it was that obama couldn’t say the words “Radical Islamic” next to the word “Terrorism”.

No doubt, consequences may well follow a similar pattern.
.

“I’m becoming less favorable toward globalism all the time. Mainly because its proponents seem to believe that no borders and multi-culturalism are working just fine”

You are conflating a more hard libertarian view with what I suspect is really a suspicion of the left.

Fine, but, a great many of unrelated problems seem wrapped up into your statement, which verges on suggesting a “baby out with the bathwater” type of conclusion, if I read between the lines correctly. It deserves unpacking.

However, won’t debate that all other than to say, as above, putin is hardly resisting “globalism” on / for those terms.

So, what we individually think about our own views of “globalism”, and the path forward for OUR country, doesn’t have any relevance to his actions and the threats he / they pose.

https://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/2017/03/11/putin-speaks-on-americas-anti-missile-defenses-and-the-world-balance/

Putin also had an interesting backstory concerning his father and his mother, when being baptized as a child. Child baptism is questionable (do they just go to hell if they aren’t baptized in time…) but it looks like Putin has acted on his own free will concerning Orthodox Chalcedonian Christianity.

Trum said do it his way.

As your King, Ryan and even you have to obey.

Obama and Hillary tried to have it both ways. Obama believed he could get Putin to downsize his nukes without showing him any respect. Obama and Hillary made a big deal about gay marriage policy in Russia. (When both of them did an about face on gay marriage in about six months time.) Obama dissed Putin by not showing up at the opening ceremonies of the Sochi Winter Olympics, when he had been expressly invited. The U.S media in Sochi kept up a litany of complaint about Russia’s “treatment” of gays. Putin spent lavishly on the games. He wanted a modicum of respect. He got dissed.

Whether that was enough to motivate him to try to help Trump defeat Hillary is a question that is waiting to be answered. Since the health of the Russian economy hangs on the price of oil, why wouldn’t he favor the anti-fracking, anti-fossil fuels, anti-defense candidate – Hillary?

I have not seen much of anyone writing or talking about Putin and what he thinks since the days of W looking him in the eye and thinking he was a good man. Mr. Caldwell’s piece was unusual in that he tired to look at him from the standpoint of a man trying to resist globalism. Something few have considered. And why people who like Donald Trump might look favorably at Putin. Interesting stuff, IMO.

I’m becoming less favorable toward globalism all the time. Mainly because its proponents seem to believe that no borders and multi-culturalism are working just fine. The evidence is mounting up against them. For me it’s been a long journey from “The Lexus and The Olive Tree” and “The Pentagon’s New Map” – both pro globalism – to where my mind is today. The day may come when the tribes will mix freely and everyone will sing Kumbaya, but we need to do a lot more evolving. A lot more.

I think the answer to your question is that the quality of the product was not in dispute. I think everyone agreed it wasn’t good enough.

The other problem with talking about the product is that health care reform is technical and complex. People sometimes single out one part of it to criticize, however, such as saying they would rather have had insurance that crossed state lines (usually ignoring the reasons that isn’t the case right now, reasons which have to do with differences in the demographics of the states as well as the different regulations and rules about the insurance business in each state).

The other reason people are talking here about the process more than the product is that the process was the news du jour—the way the vote went on Friday, that is, and what it means politically.

I quoted some of his opening and closing statements. That is the message he is presenting – they were not buried in pages 2 or 3.

The author’s point wasn’t that positive, nor was my point about his writing that he was so.

However, he was certainly playing down the threat.
.

“Putin is a thug”

Had the author opened, and come out and concluded as you have, wrt putin, there’d be no argument.
.

When obama laughed at Romney for identifying Russia as one of the US’ biggest threats on the world stage, I hardly think the dem world view was “declaring (putin) the enemy and dissing him”.

The dems (remember h clinton was obama’s SECSTATE) have consistently underplayed our enemies capabilities and threat level.
.

That trump hasn’t much to say, or, worse, makes moral equivalency remarks wrt putin, seems to be as far off the mark as obama was, and is as troubling as his laughing at the “jayvee” ISIS teams.

The author seems to roundaboutly justifying trump’s behavior on this issue… sort of along the “3D chess” sort of argument, which seems far from the real explanation, as there is little evidence that trump “thinks” that “deeply” about the relationship with putin and Russia.

The article pointed out why Obama/Clinton’s approach to Putin was a disaster. They were arrogant and refused to try to understand what has happened in Russia. Putin is a thug, but then so are Raoul Castro, Ali Khamenei, Xi Jinping, Kim Jong-un, and other leaders of sovereign countries. Some are more immediately dangerous than others, but all must be dealt with and the better we understand what makes them tick, the more successful our approach can be.

In 1991 when the USSR collapsed, I remember reading many articles about the fact that free markets and democracy had won the long Cold War. And that all the world would soon be trending in that direction. Well, we know now that didn’t happen. Humans are still hung up on the promises of egalitarianism offered by Communism and the certainty offered by dictatorships or theocracies. It is apparently in our genes. We who live in the U.S. find it hard to understand because we take free markets and democracy too much for granted.

Putin is not that unusual among leaders of other countries outside the West. He will never be a close ally, but considering his store of nuclear weapons, we should strive to be resolute in the face of his aggression, (a strong NATO) but find ways to lessen the tension between our countries. Declaring him an enemy and dissing him on the world stage is not going to make things better.

Says more about the individual making this sad statement, than of the state of the world.

The reality is that democracy has always been messy. The fight for ideas is never ending.

But, if our approach is that all those “others” are too stupid or otherwise deficient to bother to try to convince, then is it a wonder they aren’t?
.

What I’d like people to absorb is the idea that the more power we leave in the hands of government, the more effort we need to put into this “convincing” each election cycle (among other things).

As one indicator, not surprising that it costs approximately $1B for each candidate in a POTUS election cycle (trump notwithstanding, in an anomalous year with an exceptionally lousy opponent).