Yes. Well sort of. It's the Canadian CPC leadership thread, which got derailed from discussing the Canadian Conservative leader to foreign interference in elections. Combine the two, and the prevailing attitudes of Canadian Conservatives regarding election interference becomes quite germane to the conversation.
My bad, i get lazy with formatting on desktop, forgetting that mobile ignores list spacing if its not properly bulleted. Its a list of the common elements between Trudeau/China and Trump/Russia.
I was asking you to invert the partisanship in the lines I bolded in your post (the first and last) - to consider China-gate somewhat vapid, and that anyone that can(in 2020) vote Republican is a party before country person. I'm asking for some critical thinking surrounding partisan biases, because regardless if written from the right or left lens it's a fundamentally contradictory couplet.
Personally, I think that neither Trump nor Trudeau should be/have been able to remain in office, should be/have been rendered completely unelectable in the eyes of both the political establishment and the citizenry, and a big ole broom should make an appearance to sweep out the remaining lower level Russian/Chinese assets in North American elected representation.
Now, there are those that might consider foreign interference a vapid issue, or resign themselves to the opinion that "Foreign governments interfere or try to all the time. That is a known
" and as such be willing to overlook prospective leaders being both friendly to and pushed on us by Russia/China. I disagree with that view, but I can understand the perspective where the "why" doesn't matter, only the "what" when it comes to policy objectives ie "I don't care that they're the next thing to a Russian/Chinese asset, I want to go where they're leading." But people with that approach should be consistent in it.
Now the real opportunity to build bridges is to acknowledge that people on both sides of the line believe in their respective versions of that contradictory couplet. That it's okay when their guy does it but the other is a threat to democracy. How does that happen?
Media silo's polluted by both foreign and domestic partisan disinformation convincing us that our guy is more innocent than he is and the other is more guilty?
Stark divisions fanning the flames and convincing us that its ok for our guy, because the other guy is going to be so bad for the country that winning is more important than anything?
The important thing is that for anyone on either side of that inconsistent fence is to understand that it's inconsistent, how they got there, and understand that the guy they disagree with got there the exact same way.