The Putin - Trump Controversy: Here to Stay - Links between Trump and Russia are being officially investigated by the FBI

[Ἀπολλόδοτος Α΄ ὁ Σωτήρ]

It's too early to judge if Trump is going to have a radically different foreign policy when it comes to beefing up NATO defenses in Eastern Europe, much to Russia's consternation. My guess is that he won't escalate things with Russia, because he and Putin are apparently of one mind when it comes to many things (especially in the hypothetical joint-enterprise of arctic drilling).

Trump expressed his opinion about NATO and Russia, but he isn't a dictator, the neocon Republicans might not get as much "action" they'd like to see but in concert with other Republicans they should be able to keep the US foreign military involvement at at least Obama levels, the same goes for foreign policy towards Russia, China and the ME.
Somewhat softer stance on Russia is definitely possible, but Russia desires greater influence in the ME and no mainstream Democrat, let alone Republican, except Rand Paul, would let Trump make it easy for the Russians.

[Abdülmecid I]

I think there are some pretty obvious issues with another country influencing an election to the extent someone totally incompetent gets elected, advisors that act in the interest of that other country instead of their own, and that letting foreign powers subvert our democracy and saying "so what" is a threat to the American way of life.

Selectively releasing information to the public is not a subversion of democracy, unless you believe that no democratic elections have ever taken place. Even if the Russian government was the author of all these embarassing emails and misleadingly presented them as coming from the Democratic party, democracy would still have not been undermined, because the result would still reflect the will of the American people, even if their decision was based on false perceptions. Concerning your advisors remark, you simply repeated the claim I mentioned. I recognize that a harsh stance against Russia on Ukraine, Syria or any other geopolitical conflict could promote the interests of the United States government. What I can't understand is how such a policy would serves the interests or protect the rights of the American citizenry. Only from an ultra-nationalist perspective do the interests of the people completely identify with those of the leadership, which is what leads to the endorsement of an aggressive ("patriotic") foreign policy. This is why I think that the complaints regarding the Trump-Putin controversy are essentially an emotional appeal to nationalism, with thinly veiled racist undertones.

[empr guy]

Selectively releasing information to the public is not a subversion of democracy, unless you believe that no democratic elections have ever taken place.

Why do their actions need to meet your definition of subversion to be considered a problem?

Even if the Russian government was the author of all these embarassing emails and misleadingly presented them as coming from the Democratic party, democracy would still have not been undermined, because the result would still reflect the will of the American people, even if their decision was based on false perceptions.

This is pretty stupid for a number of reasons, the biggest being that even with all the fake scandals Trump LOST the popular vote by a huge margin. How can you say he represents the will of the american people?

Concerning your advisors remark, you simply repeated the claim I mentioned. I recognize that a harsh stance against Russia on Ukraine, Syria or any other geopolitical conflict could promote the interests of the United States government. What I can't understand is how such a policy would serves the interests or protect the rights of the American citizenry.

Ok, so how does letting russia annex parts of its neighbors and threaten US allies help this same American citizenry? Remember when Hillary literally gave russia a "reset" button because Obama wanted to work with Russia and stop treating them as an adversary? How well did that work out again?

Only from an ultra-nationalist perspective do the interests of the people completely identify with those of the leadership, which is what leads to the endorsement of an aggressive ("patriotic") foreign policy. This is why I think that the complaints regarding the Trump-Putin controversy are essentially an emotional appeal to nationalism,

Obviously the only reason someone would object in any way to a hostile foreign power influencing their elections is extreme jingoism, obviously...

with thinly veiled racist undertones.

Вы должны были выучить английский язык, прежде чем отправлять Юрий! ГУЛАГ!

Which also raises the questions, what is your definition of racisim, and what race are the russians?

[Abdülmecid I]

Why do their actions need to meet your definition of subversion to be considered a problem?

It's not really my definition, as someone must have pretty strict standards to consider the fact that only the dirty laundry of the Democrats was released to the public, as a subversion of Democracy. That's a standard practice, completely unrelated to how the election results would represent the will of the American people. Feel free to explain why you disagree.

This is pretty stupid for a number of reasons, the biggest being that even with all the fake scandals Trump LOST the popular vote by a huge margin. How can you say he represents the will of the american people?

Because I never said that. The direct result of the elections was not Trump, but a victory of Hillary, when it comes to popular vote and indirectly a larger number of electors willing to side with the Republican candidate. The fact that the obsolete system of the United States allows such an unequal representation of the popular vote, highly favouring rural, less densely populated areas is the fault of neither Donald Trump nor Vladimir Putin. Personally, I would blame the ultra-conservative obsession with the almost divinised Founding Fathers and an obviously archaic document, which really obstructs much needed reforms, but that's irrelevant to the debate's subject.

Ok, so how does letting russia annex parts of its neighbors and threaten US allies help this same American citizenry? Remember when Hillary literally gave russia a "reset" button because Obama wanted to work with Russia and stop treating them as an adversary? How well did that work out again?

Again, you distort what I said. Russia's foreign policy neither helps nor undermines the interests and rights of the American people. It is simply a totally indifferent issue, which should be the least of their concerns. The only exception should be the issue of a pacifist policy, which would ensure that no human and material resources would be unnecessarily wasted to something, from which the citizenry has nothing to gain. However, regarding Russia, Trump's promises were closer to that than Hillary's jingoism.

Obviously the only reason someone would object in any way to a hostile foreign power influencing their elections is extreme jingoism, obviously...

Everyone is somehow influencing your elections, empr guy, from the Caliph of ISIL preaching for a global jihad to a European prime-minister endorsing a specific candidate. The only serious problem is if their intervention directly affects the election process, which, as it has been repeated, the release of the embarassing emails did not affect.

Which also raises the questions, what is your definition of racisim, and what race are the russians?

Pretty sure that racism is not only addressed to hatred against what is perceived as a human race, but you can replace that controversial adjective with xenophobic, if you prefer.

[ArBo]

This is pretty stupid for a number of reasons, the biggest being that even with all the fake scandals Trump LOST the popular vote by a huge margin. How can you say he represents the will of the american people?

It's unfair to hold Trump losing the popular vote against him. Trump isn't stupid; the popular vote in America means nothing, and he knows that. Like every other candidate has and always will, he therefore strategically focused his campaign on the swing states, with as his objective to win the votes that matter - those of the Electoral College. If you needed a win in the popular vote to win the presidency, Trump would have campaigned wholly differently.
I'm not a huge fan of the man's personality either, but I do believe Trump could have won the popular vote as well, if he wanted to. And even if he wouldn't have, he won the way the system forced him to win, fair and square. People really should stop using the popular vote as an excuse to question Trump's legitimacy as president, that's an actual threat to democracy.

[bigdaddy1204]

Selectively releasing information to the public is not a subversion of democracy, unless you believe that no democratic elections have ever taken place. Even if the Russian government was the author of all these embarassing emails and misleadingly presented them as coming from the Democratic party, democracy would still have not been undermined, because the result would still reflect the will of the American people, even if their decision was based on false perceptions. Concerning your advisors remark, you simply repeated the claim I mentioned. I recognize that a harsh stance against Russia on Ukraine, Syria or any other geopolitical conflict could promote the interests of the United States government. What I can't understand is how such a policy would serves the interests or protect the rights of the American citizenry. Only from an ultra-nationalist perspective do the interests of the people completely identify with those of the leadership, which is what leads to the endorsement of an aggressive ("patriotic") foreign policy. This is why I think that the complaints regarding the Trump-Putin controversy are essentially an emotional appeal to nationalism, with thinly veiled racist undertones.

The legitimacy of the Trump government is undermined by evidence that Trump is a puppet chosen to serve Russia's interests. That's what this is really about. People believe that democracy has been subverted, because the outcome was swayed by false pretences. Russian intervention may well have secured Trump's victory. That alone is enough to cast doubt on his legitimacy. But then when you consider that Trump also lost the popular vote by 3 million votes, yet still became president, that undermines his credibility even more. Add to that the fact that he has been obviously unfit for office from the beginning, and you have a powerful movement that rejects the legitimacy of Trump's presidency. Given that he is also the most unpopular candidate in history, and that a large swathe of the country is deeply opposed to everything he is trying to do, and you have a recipe for trouble.

Ultimately, if enough people reject the authority of their government to rule them, then you have a civil war. If the people become angry enough, they will simply reject the government utterly and appoint their own representatives. When that happens, you've got two governments, and the only solution is either to partition the country into two separate nations, or to use military force to destroy the other group and force them to surrender.

So in short, the US is looking at collapse either way. So it shouldn't be a surprise that people care about it so deeply. It matters a lot, and I think there's far more to it than "an emotional appeal to nationalism," as you suggested.

[ArBo]

Russian intervention may well have secured Trump's victory. That alone is enough to cast doubt on his legitimacy.

Unproven claims by definition can't damage a president's legitimacy. If they could, any president could easily be delegitimised by outrageous, unfounded and untrue claims, because the very existence of the claims would be enough to ensure unrevokeable damage to said president. I value evidence over unproven accusations by political opponents.

But then when you consider that Trump also lost the popular vote by 3 million votes, yet still became president, that undermines his credibility even more.

See my previous post. The outcome of the popular vote is irrelevant because both candidates knew it'd be irrelevant. End of story.

Add to that the fact that he has been obviously unfit for office from the beginning, and you have a powerful movement that rejects the legitimacy of Trump's presidency.

I would agree that, as a person, Trump isn't the best presidential candidate the US have ever had, partly due to his temper and ego. However, I think this impression the public now has is also in part due to Trump simply not caring too much about appearing presidential. The contrast to previous presidents, whose every word was carefully considered for them to appear as presidential and non-controversial as possible, makes Trump seem a lot worse than in reality he is, IMO. He also doesn't make decisions all on his own; within his retinue, Congress, his cabinet... there are quite a few checks and balances by people who are much more experienced in politics than he is. Nevertheless, you do have a point by mentioning his far-from-perfect personality for the job.

Given that he is also the most unpopular candidate in history, and that a large swathe of the country is deeply opposed to everything he is trying to do, and you have a recipe for trouble.

(http://www.dailywire.com/news/13292/...-aaron-bandler) Seems like a large swathe of the country approves of what Trump's doing. His personal approval polls are a little more iffy (47% approve, 46% disapprove), but still slightly above 50/50 and thus in no way indicative of any upcoming civil wars.

Ultimately, if enough people reject the authority of their government to rule them, then you have a civil war. If the people become angry enough, they will simply reject the government utterly and appoint their own representatives. When that happens, you've got two governments, and the only solution is either to partition the country into two separate nations, or to use military force to destroy the other group and force them to surrender.

There'll always be a group that supports the leadership of the country, and a group that doesn't. That's just democracy. And as I've mentioned above, the former group is larger than the latter. This usually doesn't result in civil war, believe it or not, since the minority that lost usually recognises that the majority doesn't share their opinion.
This is why it's so dangerous to question Trump's legitimacy as a president. If this minority of people believes they've unfairly lost, they might very well start doing the things you described. Criticise his policies all you want, but if you don't admit Trump has won and Hillary has lost, fair and square, you're going on a very dangerous path.

Again, I don't even like Trump, for 's sake. I'm just sick of people portraying him as Satan incarnated and undermining democracy because they didn't like the outcome of it.

[bigdaddy1204]

^ Fair points, for the most part.

I'd say a 50/50 split could potentially be enough to spark a war though. It depends how deeply the 50% who are against feel about it. The other thing is the extent to which his actions trample all over the core values held by a large part of the population. Thing is, the Satan incarnated comment is quite perceptive. For a lot of people, myself included, that is precisely what Trump represents.

Anyway I suppose my overall point is that a lot of people are deeply unhappy with Trump and his policies. (The millions of people who marched against him, for example). Even the link you posted admits that 60% of Americans feel their country is on the wrong path. And I suspect they are unlikely to accept his rule because it conflicts with fundamental deeply-held values that go to the very core of a person's being. When a politician inspires that level of feeling in his opponents, it's always going to be dangerous. But he has no one but himself to blame; his rhetoric was inflammatory and irresponsible from the start.

Just to clarify another thing, I certainly don't want any of these bad things to happen. I wouldn't wish a civil war on anyone. I'm just concerned that given the level of polarisation in American society, some sort of violent confrontation looks increasingly likely, if not inevitable.

[ArBo]

Anyone who "doesn't accept his rule", goes against the very principle of democracy itself. This step becomes way easier for people to take if they constantly hear made-up, unproven or intellectually dishonest (e.g. popular vote) reasons for why Trump's presidency would be illegitimate, since that legitimizes violent responses and revolts. These are in no way justified; Trump won the election, god damn get over it already. Focus on opposition against his policies, there's plenty of unorthodox stuff there.

[RangerGxi]

Anyone who "doesn't accept his rule", goes against the very principle of democracy itself. This step becomes way easier for people to take if they constantly hear made-up, unproven or intellectually dishonest (e.g. popular vote) reasons for why Trump's presidency would be illegitimate, since that legitimizes violent responses and revolts. These are in no way justified; Trump won the election, god damn get over it already. Focus on opposition against his policies, there's plenty of unorthodox stuff there.

Ironic that you could easily doubt Clinton's legitimacy as the Democratic candidate based on the email scandals.


It's so messed up. Liberals would be pro ISIL if Trump successfully destroyed them. Quite a few went Pro TPP when trump quashed that.

[ArBo]

When did I ever doubt Hillary's legitimacy? Nevertheless, although I don't know too much about the email scandals I must admit, I do seem to recall that there was actual evidence, unlike the ghost hunt that's going on with Trump now.

[Gaidin]

Anyone who "doesn't accept his rule", goes against the very principle of democracy itself.

Uhmmm...No. Very much historically no. Nixon's a case in point. Nobody has been required to accept the rule of a president since the founding of the country. You just have to be willing to deal with the consequences if trying to get them out of office(legally or politically) failed.

[ArBo]

If you don't accept the rule of someone who has been democratically elected before he somehow ed up and lost the support of the majority of the population (like Nixon did in your example - however, Trump has only recently been elected and still has wide support), you show complete disrespect for the democratic process. You're not "required" (if you will) to accept his rule, but if you don't, you essentially support for the minority of the population to rule over the majority. You don't have to accept his policies, of course, and you can try to come up with counter-arguments and launch your own proposals all you like. But if everyone who doesn't agree with how a country is ruled decides that, therefore, the authority of the government itself should not be respected, it's simply not possible to live together in a democratic state (unless, of course, your entire population agrees on each and every single issue - a notable example of this is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea).

[empr guy]

It's unfair to hold Trump losing the popular vote against him. Trump isn't stupid; the popular vote in America means nothing, and he knows that. Like every other candidate has and always will, he therefore strategically focused his campaign on the swing states, with as his objective to win the votes that matter - those of the Electoral College. If you needed a win in the popular vote to win the presidency, Trump would have campaigned wholly differently.
And even if he wouldn't have, he won the way the system forced him to win,

Oh I know, "the will of the people" and "winning an election" are two different things imho. Most of the country disapproving of him doesn't mean he isn't the president anymore. It might lead to him being impeached that much easier when he s up enough, but we're not there yet.

fair and square.

debatable

Because I never said that. The direct result of the elections was not Trump, but a victory of Hillary, when it comes to popular vote and indirectly a larger number of electors willing to side with the Republican candidate. The fact that the obsolete system of the United States allows such an unequal representation of the popular vote, highly favouring rural, less densely populated areas is the fault of neither Donald Trump nor Vladimir Putin. Personally, I would blame the ultra-conservative obsession with the almost divinised Founding Fathers and an obviously archaic document, which really obstructs much needed reforms, but that's irrelevant to the debate's subject.

except that you actually did say that? It doesn't legally impact his legitimacy if that's what you meant, but if the "will of the american people" was carried out trump would be busy selling books about how the elites stole the election from him.

Again, you distort what I said. Russia's foreign policy neither helps nor undermines the interests and rights of the American people. It is simply a totally indifferent issue, which should be the least of their concerns. The only exception should be the issue of a pacifist policy, which would ensure that no human and material resources would be unnecessarily wasted to something, from which the citizenry has nothing to gain. However, regarding Russia, Trump's promises were closer to that than Hillary's jingoism.

There's two problems with this, if foreign policy neither helps nor undermines the interests or rights of american people, then nothing outside our borders matters, and as you pointed out yourself this is not the case. Also describing Hillary as jingoistic compared to trump isretarded, trump is the one throwing away the military's advice on everything because it doesn't involve enough fighting and winning.

Pretty sure that racism is not only addressed to hatred against what is perceived as a human race, but you can replace that controversial adjective with xenophobic, if you prefer.

Pretty sure Trumps GOP isn't sucking putins dick because they suddenly realized the powers of tolerance and acceptance.

[ArBo]

As I explained before, Hillary won the popular vote because of the Electoral College system. Trump didn't try to win the popular vote, he aimed at winning the only vote that matters. There's no telling what the popular vote would have been like if both candidates had focused on that - therefore, the "will of the American people" argument is nonsensical.

[fair and square] debatable

In my opinion, if the rules are the same for both candidates and one wins, he has done so fairly. Unless you want to involve the Russian conspiracy theory of course (remember back in the days, when Trump said the election was rigged and it was im-pos-si-ble?).

[Abdülmecid I]

Well, if you insist on such a strict definition of the will of the American people, then neither would Hillary become president, because the absolute majority rejected her. Anyway, on topic, again I never said that Trump's proposed foreign policy is less aggressive than Hillary's or that his motives for his reconciliatory stance are his moral principles. In fact, I believe the opposite and the US probably have more chances to go to a disastrous war with a country like Iran under his leadership than with Hillary as president. That's clearly irrelevant, though, because both the thread's subject and my post concerned only the Russian aspect, not the entire foreign policy agenda endorsed by Trump.

[Gaidin]

If you don't accept the rule of someone who has been democratically elected before he somehow ed up and lost the support of the majority of the population (like Nixon did in your example - however, Trump has only recently been elected and still has wide support), you show complete disrespect for the democratic process. You're not "required" (if you will) to accept his rule, but if you don't, you essentially support for the minority of the population to rule over the majority. You don't have to accept his policies, of course, and you can try to come up with counter-arguments and launch your own proposals all you like. But if everyone who doesn't agree with how a country is ruled decides that, therefore, the authority of the government itself should not be respected, it's simply not possible to live together in a democratic state (unless, of course, your entire population agrees on each and every single issue - a notable example of this is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea).

It actually has nothing to do with the democratic process or the majority of the population. It has to do with the fact that Nixon's own party stopped supporting him. There were well over the number of Senators he needed for him to survive an impeachment no matter what his popularity was. When the Republicans started turning sides, he resigned. You sir, need to remember what your elementary school playground rulefights are like. Nobody wins until somebody from one team agrees with the other.

And now, a few years ago, ask why Holder could be defiant? The democrats backed him. Ask why Sessions couldn't, major republican committee players and leaders called him out.

[Infidel144]

(remember back in the days, when Trump said the election was rigged and it was im-pos-si-ble?).

Hell, remember when Trump said he maybe would not accept the outcome of the election, and his opponents went insane, that him saying that was the greatest threat to democracy ever, it would destroy the nation and herald in the apocalypse.
But that was then...

[ArBo]

It actually has nothing to do with the democratic process or the majority of the population. It has to do with the fact that Nixon's own party stopped supporting him. There were well over the number of Senators he needed for him to survive an impeachment no matter what his popularity was. When the Republicans started turning sides, he resigned. You sir, need to remember what your elementary school playground rulefights are like. Nobody wins until somebody from one team agrees with the other.

And now, a few years ago, ask why Holder could be defiant? The democrats backed him. Ask why Sessions couldn't, major republican committee players and leaders called him out.

You, Sir, are dodging my point. If you go around denying the legitimacy of a democratically elected president solely on the grounds that you don't like him/his policies, that makes democracy unworkable.

[Gaidin]

You, Sir, are dodging my point. If you go around denying the legitimacy of a democratically elected president solely on the grounds that you don't like him/his policies, that makes democracy unworkable.

The election is irrelevant is my point. It's all about if the party will back its own people in the playground argument(Hint: cracks are showing). All the election determined is who was in office.