Damn Right Trump’s Election is Illegitimate


Trump sneer

Graphic of Trump courtesy of Boing Boing

I am getting damned tired of people asking the question of whether Trump’s election is illegitimate. And I am even tireder of people (largely Democrats and media) responding that the Electoral College voted and he was officially elected. Forget the fact that the Electoral College would not even discuss what was happening in terms of interference with the election. I am tired of being told that there is no evidence that the Russians mickied the voting machines.

Here is what we DO know. The Russians, perhaps with the knowing collusion of Trump and/or his staff, promoted the use of LIES (called “Fake News”) to create an even worse impression of Hillary Clinton than real facts. There were outright campaigns that we know got millions of “views” each, and this seems to have gone hand in glove with the Russian efforts.

While a lot of these attacks were against Clinton, many often including Obama, they indirectly encouraged a perception of government that increased levels of suspicion and therefore supporting the Trump campaign’s promise to tear it all up, drain the swamp, blah blah blah. It also increased the motivation for those who just wanted to destroy/ break everything to vote for Trump knowing that he is a walking wrecking ball.

Are we to assume that none of this affected the election? Does this mean that the public is responsible to sort out the lies and disinformation campaigns when the media is not even offering a helping hand? Consider this convoluted piece of lies, reality twisting, and disinformation of Trump and his belittling of disabled reporter Serge Kovaleski as stated by Margaret Sullivan:

Yes, this is the reporter whom Trump mocked during the campaign — waving his arms in a crude but unmistakable imitation of Kovaleski’s movements. When criticized for doing so, Trump vehemently denied that mocking Kovaleski was even possible because he didn’t know him. (Which was also a lie.) All this, because Trump wanted to promote a myth — talk about “fake news” — that thousands of Muslims in New Jersey celebrated 9/11, which he falsely claimed Kovaleski reported while working at The Washington Post. Any reasonable person looking back at the facts would find that ­absurd.

Is this argument of  essentially ‘no effect’ being made to provide cover for others who were “hacking” the election. Namely Israel, the Koch brothers, emigre super blocs, and others? Perhaps so that the United States does not need to admit that our own actions over the decades in other countries elections did not invalidate or short-circuit their elections – even if that was damn well the intended results.

So YES, the election was BOGUS, and it remains doubly bogus by denying the challenges to recount brought forward by the Green party. There are tens of thousands of votes that never even got counted (read Greg Palast please). However, the most likely result of all of this “influencing” was that massive numbers of voters JUST STAYED HOME. This made it even easier for the extreme wedge group of Trump followers to take the election, and for a corrupt Republican leadership to trade the country for the special interests they have been promoting for decades.

Comments

  1. says

    So YES, the election was BOGUS

    Those of us who throw up the “yeah, but …” objections are often pointing out that all the elections are bogus. It doesn’t mean we support Trump, though. It also doesn’t mean we wanted Clinton. It seems to me that people who are thinking about this problem as a dichotomy are mistaken about that crucial point: they think that Clinton lost because of {russians | Trump lies | fake news | timely revelation of DNC sleaziness | dumping Trump’s tax return} – there’s a whole menu of chicanery to choose from, but Hillary Clinton lost the election because it was remarkably easy to portray her as a corrupt member of a corrupt system, and Trump portrayed himself as outside that system. The election was a referendum on the system itself which is why the Trump supporters I’ve listened to simply don’t care: they were voting to see the whole system burn. They also naturally allied with racists and xenophobes, the same way Clinton tried to ally with progressives and bernie supporters, but it’s not as simple as “who is illegitimate” or not.

    Remember at one point, there were questions as to whether or not Trump would accept a loss as legitimate. Shock and pearl-clutching from the Hillary supporters, “OMG would Trump not accept the election?!” and now we’re seeing “OMG whaaaat Trump is illegitimate!!!” Here’s the reason that it’s easy to point those fingers: neither side would be legitimate regardless who won, because the popular vote was not merely mooted by the electoral college, it was controlled by the two-party machine, which made sure there was no viable alternative except for two bags of garbage in human form. So, surprise, we got an illegitimate bag of garbage for president. That has always been the “choice.” Long live democracy.

  2. cobsweb says

    Thanks for the thoughtful response, Marcus.

    Frankly, the issues back up before we were left with Clinton and Trump – the two most disliked candidates ever to run – or so I saw reported.

    I totally agree on the 2 party system, but this was ONE election where a third party could have won, and many point to Trump as that third party.

    I feel that if we do not address the interventions in our election system, we will never have a chance of the people regaining control of the government. I feel like we are in for some big time problems.

  3. brucegee1962 says

    The problem with the “election is bogus” argument is that it plays right into Trump’s hands.

    I just finished grading a college freshman essay from a young black man who says he didn’t vote. He gave several reasons (the standard “didn’t trust either candidate” one was prominent), but the one that really struck me was the belief that the system was rigged, so there was no point in voting. I wrote in the margin that if the system was actually rigged, did he really believe those responsible for rigging it would have let Obama win — twice?

    I think that this was the main reason that Trump kept going on and on about the election rigging in the weeks before the vote. He knew that reducing peoples’ confidence in the elections would keep them at home — and he was right.

  4. cobsweb says

    I personally am convinced that getting people to not vote is a Republican plan that has been tremendously effective. The fewer the people who vote, the smaller a bloc of voters it takes to win elections. Convincing people that “tehir vote doesn’t matter/count” has a dozen variants.

    This is one of the things that has driven me crazy for years as I vehemently feel that voting is the lowest (and most basic) level of civic responsibility. Too many people struggles (and more than a few died) so that I have the right to vote – a right Republican have declared war on. I cannot find it in me to dishonor the efforts of so many people; to throw away the one peaceful social change tool that we collectively have.

    There are arguments about whether Trump is a ‘real’ Republican. In this instance I don’t think there is any doubt.

  5. says

    I’m pretty sure than running the two most disliked candidates in recent history had a bigger influence on people staying home than anything Russia could possibly “influence”.

    You mention the LIES and fake news that made Hillary Clinton look worse than she was. While we may disagree on the truth/false ratio of those claims, you have to admit that when it came to mud-slinging the republicans had a 20+ year head-start. Perhaps not running a candidate with such a glaring weakness would’ve been a good idea? I mean, it was kind of insane, that her base were trying to pass it off as a strength during the primary, the whole “she’s been vetted/she’s stronger because of it” and such.

    I’ve been reading articles and comments about the whole mess for a couple months now, and I’ve noticed a lot of unhelpful sentiments being voiced. Namely, that vital recount effort spearheaded by Jill Stein and the Green Party. I saw a lot of democrats shitting endlessly on Jill Stein as she was TRYING TO WIN THEM THE ELECTION.

    Just as they’ve been shitting on: Bernie Sanders, Millenials, White People, Men, Third party voters, Progressives, White Women, the Media, etc.
    Friend or foe, doesn’t matter. Unquestionably try to game the system to get her to win, get shit on. At some point you’re gonna run out of friends in an unfair system that favors the likes of Trump.

    Truth is, as far as the system is concerned, Trump’s presidency is legitimate. The only factor that can be changed is wether his “legitimate” presidency will last 4 years or 8. The entire “Russian Hackers” thing didn’t work during the election. Hillary DID talk about Russians hacking the DNC back then and she also DID attack Trump for his ties with Putin. If it didn’t work then, it’s not gonna work now.

    Your only hope right now is to try and get the Democrats to stop pointing fingers at everyone, correct their real mistakes, and run candidates (for congress and the presidency) that can actually get and retain the kind of support Obama had in 2008.

    • cobsweb says

      I was not a Clinton supporter. I wanted LaRiva, but recognizing she had no choice I backed Stein and Baracka. Realizing that she was a long shot, I also supported Sanders. I agree that Clinton was a bad candidate for a number of reasons both real and hyped, but in my opinion the biggest proximal reason (the straw so to speak) was that regardless of the cost, she felt it was her right to be the Democratic candidate.

      If I were ‘queen’ for a day and had the power to change things with our government, I would start with the following:
      – break the 2 party stranglehold on our system, and make institute proportional representation
      – put in a presidential recall or vote of no confidence capacity like most democracies have
      – facilitate a mechanism for citizens referendums to rice to formal consideration of the Congress
      – not allow omnibus bills; all legislation would have to be discrete so that odious legislation could not be bundled in with other things that are critiical to be passed.
      – get money out of politics
      – make it the responsibility of the media to do community broadcasting as part of their licenses (in other words go back to what they used to have to do that required them to present political campaigns for free, and equal time for opposing views, etc free of charge.

  6. Dunc says

    I wrote in the margin that if the system was actually rigged, did he really believe those responsible for rigging it would have let Obama win — twice?

    Why not? Obama was a perfect “centrist”. He managed to neatly defuse a lot of popular discontent without actually changing any of the policies that matter to the establishment.

    • cobsweb says

      I believe he sold out to the Clinton machine to get their support. His 2008 cabinet was essentially Bill Clinton’s . This set him on a course well right of his campaign right out of the box. Even before he got the nomination, there was little difference. If he had been a change agent, that died before he walked into the Oval Office.

  7. sonofrojblake says

    getting people who would vote Democrat to not vote is a Republican plan that has been tremendously effective

    FIFY. Because unless the tactic of getting people to stay at home doesn’t disproportionately work on Democrat voters, there’s self-evidently no point to it. Which leads to the obvious question: why does this work better on Democrats than on Republicans?

    I vehemently feel that voting is the lowest (and most basic) level of civic responsibility.

    I agree. So why is it, do you think, that Republican voters exhibit more civic responsibility than Democrat voters?
    (Or if you’re going to pedantic about, y’know, facts (i.e. the popular vote numbers), why is it that Republican voters in the states that count do so?)

    There is no doubt that Trump is not a “real” Republican. The Republican party machine did its level best for a whole year and spent fortunes to sabotage his campaign for the nomination. Don’t you remember? The Republican party demonstrably would rather have had Jeb Bush and lose the election. Sheesh, they’d rather have had Ted Cruz, who, let’s not forget, was excoriating Trump and insulting him publicly consistently right up until the point where he pivoted and started endorsing him, mere hours before the “grab them by the pussy” tapes came out.

    But they got Trump and are having to make the best of it. But don’t think that that makes Trump a Republican. Trump is a tiger the Republicans have by the tail. One of the defining characteristics of Republicans, whatever else you think of them, is that they look after and are generally loyal to other Republicans. Trump looks after Trump. Everyone else – everyone – is little people. If he was a real Republican, that would be much better than what we’ve got.

    • anat says

      Some voter suppression efforts do in fact work more to suppress people who would vote for the Democratic candidate. Voter ID laws work against people who have difficulty demonstrating identity or getting to locations where valid ID can be obtained. Immigrants and members of racial minorities are disproportionately affected. Laws disenfranchising people with past convictions disproportionately affect black voters.

  8. StevoR says

    A few observations from across the world’s largest ocean by this Aussie :

    1) I find the quote here :

    About 60.35 million voted for Trump; ~60.98 million voted for Clinton. 46.9% of registered voters did not vote, and the U.S. has a population of 324.97 million. Yes, ~18.6% of the U.S. population, less than one in five, has set us on this course.

    Source : http://www.notesfromberingia.com/if-the-wind-will-not-serve-take-to-the-oars/

    Rather staggering. Maybe not too surprising given the known long-term issue of low voter turn out but staggering. It was later pointed out when I raised this before on another blog that some of those are too young to vote etc .. and so its a quarter of the US population maybe who voted for Trump. Still that means three-quarters of the USA did NOT vote for him – and yet he’s now POTUS? Seems ..wrong to me.

    2) This article on the electoral college :

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-petrocelli/its-time-to-end-the-electoral-college_b_12891764.html

    As a resident of the largest state, California, I look at the residents of the smallest state, Wyoming, with particular envy during election season. Each vote cast in Wyoming is worth 3.6 as much as the same vote cast in California. How can that be, you might ask? It’s easy to see, when you do the math.

    That just staggered me when I read it because, well, really? But yes, seems so. Its incredibly unfair and undemocratic in my view (what about one man = one vote!?) and I think it shows that the electoral college does indeed need to be scrapped among some other political reforms I think the USA badly needs ..

    3) .. Starting with the introduction of preferential voting i.e. you can put your ideal if unelectable choice first, your realistic choice second and your nightmare scenario oh-ye-gawds-please-no! option last. For instance, Nader 1, Gore 2 and Dubya Bush the Lesser last. Instead of y’know letting Nader (or Stein or Johnson etc ..) act as spoilers stealing votes fromthe better options that would otherwise get elected e.g. Gore in 2000, Hillary Clinton last year. Preferential voting is what my nation (Oz) has and so maybe I’m biased here but it seems vastly superior a system to me. Not that my own political system is lacking in faults either, I know it ain’t perfect either. Still.

    4) Then there’s the term limits and lack of ability to redo. Such a shame Obama couldn’t run again and really why not? Such a shame there’s no way to have elections when needed instead of arbitrary set and fixed dates. And Tuesdays? Not say weekends as is more traditional here?

    5) Voter suppression, gerrymandering and sundry other dirty tricks often rally racist in effect. Hanging chads, etc ..

    Then there’s the whole Russian interference and the FBI last minute emails raising nastiness and skullduggery and so on. Which shouldn’t be forgotten or under-played in my view either.

    Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by , so I gather , about three million votes. I think that makes her the legitimate POTUS and Trump illegitimate just by itself but when you add in everything else I mentioned that becomes an even stronger case again.

    So I think Trump is indeed illegitimate. For all those and other reasons starting with his mental competence and proudly disgustingly criminal conduct towards women. ( See : http://fusion.net/story/328522/donald-trump-accused-rape-sexual-assault/ – why isn’t this deplorable excuse for a man in jail yet?)

    @ #1.Marcus Ranum :

    .. Hillary Clinton lost the election because it was remarkably easy to portray her as a corrupt member of a corrupt system.. (snip) .. it was controlled by the two-party machine, which made sure there was no viable alternative except for two bags of garbage in human form.

    Easy? Easy? The Republicans have spent decades of effort demonising, slandering and throwing unfair and untrue filth at Hillary Clinton and she deserves better than that sort of false equivalence from people who really should know better in my view. Yes, Hillary is a pragmatic, practical, centrist and also really quite a durn impressive tough and good politician and person. No, she’s not Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein or Ralph Nader. Not your 1,001% purer than pure, utopian ideal candidate. But compared to the alternative here and given her actual policies and conduct and character .. Oh for pity’s sake!

    • cobsweb says

      Thanks StevoR for that contribution. Well reasoned, and sourced. I totally agree that there is something very spooky and wrong when someone can be elected to such a position of power with such low participation. After all, the world also pays for this decision.

  9. cobsweb says

    I don’t think that this tactic of promoting (and then enforcing) non-voting affects Democrats more than Republicans. What makes this weighted towards the Republicans is that “true believers’ are more likely to participate and they make up a large part of the Republican base.

    This has actually been disastrous for the Republican Party. Thanks to changes instituted by Reagan, by the time GW Bush went into office, it was reported that 2/3 of the representatives at the Republican Convention considered themselves ‘born again’ Christians (aka Evangelical). This move to the right and the rise of hard right influence has totally reshaped the party, and frankly US politics. (Trump has brought in an even more radical, and openly racialized, group into the party.

    An environment has been created where there is no middle, no compromising, possible. That is because so many issues are based in belief and doctrine and when you are negotiating, beliefs are off the table. They are simply non-negotiable. This is a significant component of the hard divide between Democrats and Republicans. It has had Republican Party Leadership pulling its hair out trying to get any movement out of its representatives in Congress – too many ideologues. Hence, deadlock. Business is not possible in the environment UNLESS everything is going their way – like now. They will force through legislation that it will takes years to moderate, if it ever is. These are things like corporatizing education, social security, veterans affairs, etc. Once things are in the private sector it is very difficult to bring them back into the public sector.

    As to why he won those states in the ‘rust belt’ I am not sure. There did seem to be more ‘Never Clinton’ folks there. Maybe because they though NAFTA wrecked their lives specifically. Sanders also did very well in the rust belt, and one series of interviews I saw had several Sanders folks who went to Trump.

    I agree on Trump. I think that people don’t realize what they have elected, except those that hope to ‘destroy it all.’ We could easily end up in several ‘dirty’ wars. I don’t think there have been many real challenges to Trump’s will. He has largely lived in his own world with a family business of which he has been king – like a different class of pawn kings. He is used to his word being law and not only are the other participants in the business not his equals, they are hi children. From everything we have available, Trump appears to be a clinical narcissist and sociopath, he is vengeful and he is addicted to being the center of attention – this is part of the constant craziness with his tweeting. He will deliberately make things ‘exciting’ if he feels that the spotlight is moving away from him. Given how dangerous that can be to the country and the world when he steps into the Presidency is fodder for a dystopian novel – IMO.

  10. sonofrojblake says

    the world also pays for this decision

    Word. Elsewhere on this very blog network I’ve been told “you don’t even live here. You don’t know what it’s like. Fuck you for even thinking you have anything to say about it”, simply because I live in the UK and expressed an opinion the writer disagreed with in terms they didn’t like. I’m not saying it’s worse if you live outside the US – I’m really, really glad I don’t live there. It’s obviously worse being there than being here. But it’s going to get worse here too, and we didn’t get a vote.

    Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by , so I gather , about three million votes. I think that makes her the legitimate POTUS

    Nope. Not AT ALL. In any normal election I could say this: Clinton knew the rules before she entered the race, and by entering agreed to play by them. They obviously suited her before she lost, so claiming the result is illegitimate now is hypocrisy.
    Except this wasn’t a normal election, it’s worse than that – Clinton didn’t just know the rules before she entered the race, she had been in a position to CHANGE those rules, for YEARS… and didn’t.

    I don’t think that this tactic of promoting (and then enforcing) non-voting affects Democrats more than Republicans

    Then it doesn’t matter. You could stop 99.9% of the electorate from voting, and as long as you affected Democrats and Republicans in equal numbers, the result would be no different so the interference would matter. Reducing the number of voters overall ONLY matters because the non-voters are disproportionately Democrat voters.

    What you seem to be saying is that Democrats are generally not “true believers”. You seem to be characterising them as feckless and lazy. I don’t think you’re actually doing that… are you?

    • cobsweb says

      Then it doesn’t matter. You could stop 99.9% of the electorate from voting, and as long as you affected Democrats and Republicans in equal numbers, the result would be no different so the interference would matter. Reducing the number of voters overall ONLY matters because the non-voters are disproportionately Democrat voters.

      What I was trying to say that the more voters who opt out the easier it is for voting blocs – groups that vote essentially the same way on a constellation of issues and people – to take an election. The far right much more consistently votes as a bloc than Democrats or Independents do.

      What you seem to be saying is that Democrats are generally not “true believers”. You seem to be characterising them as feckless and lazy. I don’t think you’re actually doing that… are you?

      I have no idea how you got to this. Evangelical Christians are Fundamentalists. As a group, they lean heavily towards social conservatism and traditionalism. They are much more likely to be Republican and they are much more likely to vote as a bloc. Fundamentalists have a strong tendency to believe fervently. This also tends to propel them to vote.

      By definition, a true believer is “one who is intensely or excessively devoted to a cause

  11. Pierce R. Butler says

    StevoR @ # 9 – Your source seems to use early vote counts.

    As of 1/3/17, the Cook Report [pdf] says

    Clinton 65,844,610 Trump 62,979,636 Others 7,804,213

    However, that dumbass Clinton explicitly stated she would accept the results – she really would’ve been an awful president, though all of Mt Rushmore put together compared to what we got.

  12. samihawkins says

    “Well yes a hostile foreign power actively worked to promote Trump and drag down Clinton, and yes the head of the FBI used his supposedly non-partisan position to launch an utterly baseless attack on Clinton just 11 days before the election that had every single media outlet in America droning on about “Hillary’s eeeeee-mails!” during the lead up to election day, and yes the GOP has spent years actively working to disenfranchise democrat voters in strategic states, but Hillary still could have won! Its all her fault!”

    ^I’m so sick of this shit. Short of assassination there’s nothing that could have made it impossible for Clinton to win, that doesn’t mean it was a fair election. If I take two runners and clamp a ball and chain on one of them it’s still technically possible for them to win the race, but I think they’d still be justified in calling it bullshit when they lost.

    Not that these types care. It’s blatantly obvious most of them are just bitter Sanders supporters, a candidate i supported to, high-fiving each other over who can bash Clinton the most.

  13. sonofrojblake says

    I have no idea how you got to this [Democrats as lazy/feckless]

    It’s pretty straightforward. You observed:
    1. voting is an important (possibly the most important) civic responsibility.
    2. Democrats are more likely to shirk that responsibility than Republicans, especially if urged to do so by Republicans, because they’re not “true believers” and don’t vote in blocs.

    Is that not what you meant?

  14. lanir says

    So… there’s been a lot of energy thrown around at conversations just like this one lately. I’m guessing most of you who’ve commented as well as our host will not particularly like hearing this but in all honesty I don’t see any point to this sort of talk.

    Trump got elected using the system that was in place. Whether you agree with anything he says or not, that makes him legitimately the POTUS. Just like Obama before him, despite all the fruitloops that claimed otherwise. With the entire system supporting his legitimacy as president, the only means of removing him from that office are armed insurrection and civil war or working within the system.

    I’d like to respectfully suggest we remove the civil war option as completely horrid and non-viable. “Illegitimate” is one of those terms used to justify civil wars so I’d really prefer not to hear it again.

    But don’t just stop. I’m saying spend all that energy in an effective way. Working within the existing system requires a few things. First off, you’ll need enough discipline to go after specific things he’s doing. Just saying you dislike him in general is not going to get you anywhere except with people who already agree with you. Second, amplify your voice by getting together with people who feel the same way. But you may need to help them keep focused on an effective message. Third, work within the system by contacting your representatives in government. Inside the US that’s your representatives in congress. Outside the US this generally isn’t your fight but if your group is large enough perhaps you can convince your government to make a statement to the local US embassy. The advantage of this approach over just calling him illegitimate is if you your like-minded friends have the political power to get him out of office, then that will probably happen. But if you fall short, along the way you’ll make it very difficult for him to do whatever he wants to do.

    To put it another way, the biggest gift you can give Trump is a lot of random disgruntled talk that reaches for pie in the sky solutions or nothing at all. Organize and use your energy effectively instead. If you already are, talk about that. It will help get other people onboard instead of wasting their energy.

  15. cobsweb says

    Lanir, the primary issue here is not Trump. It is the interference by third parties in our election process.

    Let’s take a hypothetical. Let’s say that people all feel relatively positive about two hypothetical candidates. Let’s say the another nation successfully runs an operation such as was done here. Let’s say that one of these fairly likable candidates wins the election and we find that she is the one who the foreign nation “helped.” Or she loses for that matter. Do we just ‘let it go’ because we kind of ‘like’ the person elected, or we feel that either candidate would have been ok, so who cares?

    Should we even ask WHY that country was mucking about in our elections, or why they would back candidate A over B? Or should we just say “Oh Well” and go on as if nothing has happened?

    Maybe none of this bothers you, or even a bunch of other people, but it does bother me. Hell, it bothers me greatly that the United States does this type of interference (and worse) all over the world. Do you honestly think that we do this to others because it doesn’t work?

    Regarding addressing the issue of organizing for certain policies, or defending against certain policies of Trump (or even the Republicans), that is extremely important as well. In fact, there is so much s__t coming down that it feels like a deliberate blitzkrieg, or shock and awe, strategy and we have to respond to multiple issues and problems all at the same time. And yes, It IS taking a lot of energy

    • lanir says

      Sorry, I wrote my reply after reading the comments and I probably should have scanned your original post again first.

      This election did highlight the problems with our style of government. I always viewed it as promising two things when you got down to it. First, it promises majority rule. That obviously didn’t happen this year. Second, it seems to promise that a transition to another style of government is possible within the system if only enough people can agree on it.

      The type of interference you mention is only effective against a target that is weakened by internal issues. We have breathlesss (and largely unsubstantiated) assertions that Russia perpetrated the DNC hack by the same agencies who two years before were claiming we needed to rollback our use of encryption. The proposed national seurity threat of various leaks is magically lessened by the rank of the leaker but of course we don’t believe in nobility or the divine right of kings. Theft is also magically much less serious if you steal enough from a large group of people. And we’re apparently supposed to believe that unarmed people of darker skin color are violent and scary when we find out they’ve been gunned down by well armed pale people in positions of power.

      I think it’s these sorts of divisive issues and blatant examples of government dysfunction that make it possible for influence peddlers to do what you’ve described. Without this kind of environment they wouldn’t have much effect.

  16. says

    cobsweb @16

    Do we just ‘let it go’ because we kind of ‘like’ the person elected, or we feel that either candidate would have been ok, so who cares?

    I imagine that there would be little point (for anyone, foreign power or otherwise) in pushing for one candidate or the other if they were so interchangeable. If you (the american electorate) kinda liked the person elected you wouldn’t see much point in investigating either, had such intervention happened. People don’t really go to the doctor when they think they’re healthy.

    Should we even ask WHY that country was mucking about in our elections, or why they would back candidate A over B?

    Assuming a foreign nation was mucking about in your elections (and the evidence is flimsy) and assuming it was Russia, perhaps more than backing candidate A out of some sense of alignment, they attacked candidate B because she was threatening them with war at every turn?

    Do you honestly think that we do this to others because it doesn’t work?

    That’s the thing. US (and Russian) interventions are quite commonplace, they have an MO and a set of tactics that I’m just not seeing here.
    I mean, did Putin preside the election and personally announce the new president, as Hillary did in Honduras?
    Did Russia give guns to the Trump supporters so they could overthrow the government, like Obama did/is doing in Syria?
    Did Russia violently annex american territory, like the US did to Puerto Rico?
    Was there any KGB political assassination similar to the CIA stuff we commonly see?
    Did a foreign politician literally pen american law, like Hillary Clinton recently did in Mexico, much to our pain?

    Maybe I missed a couple headlines, but I’m pretty sure none of these things have actually happened to you. And failing that sort of ugly business I just can’t understand how you could be so upset about the alleged “intervention” (that doesn’t at all look like one), other than by it’s specific outcome (read: Trump).

  17. says

    Ok, Rachel Maddow just goaded Trump into escalating tensions on the Russian border.
    https://youtu.be/uHX031UoCXA?t=11m30s

    The outgoing president is very quietly leaving […] thousands of US troops on Russia’s doorstep, on his way out the door.
    And here’s the question. Is the new president gonna take those troops out?
    After all the speculation, after all the worry, we are actually about to find out if Russia maybe has something on the new president. We’re about to find out if the new president of our country is going to do what Russia wants.

    An attempted entrapment, if Trump does the sensible thing (for once) and de-escalates tensions with Russia (you know, the guys with the nukes), it will be taken as an admission that Russia “has something on him”. It’s obvious that the main idea here is getting Trump to keep the soldiers where they are.
    What’s the endgame here? Point your guns at Russia, tell them to cut it out, they don’t listen, shoot?
    You guys all realize that the US entering a direct conflict with Russia has a chance of escalating into nuclear war, right?
    Even before getting there, the mere clash of some of the biggest military forces is enough to do a quite a number on the world. The whole affair in Syria was dangerous enough, but at least it had a chance of becoming just another proxy war, like many others you’ve had. This is different.

    You know China is going to join them in their fight against you, right? They basically told Obama to fuck off last year, and they don’t have much love for Trump, either. India might join them too. As will Iran. LePen’s France, if they get into power. I’m reading that Putin has some British admirers. Just 3/4 of BRIC is enough to make this the mother of all uphill battles. Please, would you mind having a little more self-awareness than your politicians?

    What do you have on your corner? A fracturing EU, a non-combatant Latin America, Israel, Canada, maybe? In the event of military conflict, Putin would have the upper hand. He won’t respond to attempts at intimidation in the way you wish. Even if you were to win, it would be the mother of all phyrric victories.

    Cut it out, this just stopped being funny. This isn’t one of your cute partisan attacks for political points. Forget the culture wars. None of the things you fear Trump will do could possibly be as bad as starting fucking World War 3, and losing it. As of right now, I hope that Trump is as much Putin’s puppet as Democrats say he is, because that would be the only thing stopping you from fucking up the world beyond repair.

  18. Dunc says

    An attempted entrapment, if Trump does the sensible thing (for once) and de-escalates tensions with Russia (you know, the guys with the nukes), it will be taken as an admission that Russia “has something on him”.

    Yeah, I’ve been strongly suspecting that the objective of all of these allegations is to make it politically difficult for Trump to adopt a more conciliatory stance with Russia – which is one of the few thing’s he’s promised to do that I’m definitely in favour of.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *