I say it is the same thing

This is the second time you have used the "hate" strawman. Those are YOUR words. by by.

 

What do you mean by "strongarm robbery?"

 

Taking by force or threat of force

Strong armed robbery differs from armed robbery in that alleged theft was done with violence, threats or force but without the use of a deadly weapon. It is considered a serious theft crime and will be vigorously prosecuted.
Strong Armed Robbery | Miami Theft Crime Lawyer

 

Our laws do not recognize this sort of collective ownership concept for all US flags. There is a legal difference between me buying a flag and burning vs me stealing it from someone else and burning it. Surely you realize that. But if you realized that, you would also realize why your OP is wrong.

 

That helps. Now we have the problem of defining what an official action of a foreign government is. We have established the parenthetical of US citizen monetary/free speech involvement and officially sanctioned foreign government intrusion. What we are left with is a voluminous grey area between. What do we do with the CIA, Russian oligarchs, Obama and Netanyahu, etc.?

 

I'd say that they aren't the same. In terms of violence and force strong armed robbery is worse. But we should consider the value of the theft. For example robbing a bank of $10,000,000 without violence is much worse than stealing a pen out of someone's hand against their will.

 

CIA is a government agency. Their actions are official action by that standard.
Russian Oligarchs are known for working on behalf of the Russian government, as such their actions should be closely scrutinized.
Obama is a private citizen. He can do what he likes as long as it’s not political by nature.
Netanyahu is the head of a foreign nation and therefore acts as on behalf of Israel. He should not be acting to influence American elections.

This is all of course my opinion, backed up by facts where possible.

 

The value is not as important as the crime of snatching by force, it's the principle that a criminal just takes what they want. Police should certainly consider it a serious felony.

 

So according to you snatching a pen out of someone's hand is worse than a 10 million dollar bank robbery where there was no violence?

The value should be considered alongside the level of violence and the levels of both should be considered. E.g.:

Non-violent bank robbery:
Value: $10 million (very high)
Violence: None (none)

Snatching pen:
Value: 50 cents (very low)
Violence: Removing from hand (very low)

On balance, the bank robbery is worse than snatching the pen according to these metrics.

 

Snatching by force is a felony by itself, reguardless of the value, it could be a stick or piece of garbage, point is, it's yours and no one has a right to take it. And your first sentence is NOT MY words.

 

And I'm telling you that the legal system is very messed up if people get years in jail for snatching a pen or a piece of paper. Thankfully the police don't take these things seriously and don't put people in jail for small things like this.

 

So why can’t Putin influence our elections? He’s the equivalent of our CIA influencing other countries. And why was it ok for Obama to influence Israeli elections when president? How is that different than Putin? We mess with other countries all the time. Always have. What makes it ok for us and wrong for others?

 

We teach children not to just take stuff, adults should know better. Adults who feel entitled to just snatch a hat, or whatever, should face consequences. Much like a child, when there are no consequences, it reinforces bad behavior. Are you OK with people just taking what they want from you? If it's OK to snatch your ink pen, how about a 5$ bill or a tenspot?

 

You can see why he is a trump supporter.

 

Quite simple. It’s not okay for us to do it.

 

So you are a strict isolationist. People like Neville Chamberlain had it right?

 

Perhaps, but damaging property that didn't belong to you also qualifies as vandalism.

 

Not at all. If the actions of foreign nations call for military conflict to ensure the safety of allied nations then we are obligated to intervene. We however are not, in my opinion, obligated to intervene in the free and fair elections of foreign nations.

 

Ok. So you’ve confirmed you believe Chamberlain was correct. Personally I prefer to preemptively avert wars, but that’s just me.

 

If you feel obligated to lump people together, go for it. It doesn’t impact me in the slightest.

 

I’m just a realist. You can’t have it both ways.