The only thing I dislike is that I perceive that there are still some negative prejudices against us. The coronavirus crisis was a good example of that. I remember Mark Rutte and the Finance Minister of The Netherlands saying very negative comments on Spain and Portugal. — javi2541997

And that's what Trump doesn't understand. If a leader of one nation directly goes to badmouth another nation, out of nowhere it creates resentment and hostility. And especially when you don't know just what the hell you are talking about.

There's on saying about the British, they just love to criticize their Royalty, but a foreigner criticizing their royalty? Now way.

So then Trump repeating Kremlin talking points and making the deals with Putin on Ukraine and seems also Eastern Europe won't fly so well. But naturally he doesn't know what the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement meant to Poland, Finland, The Baltic States and Romania. But they will, once the media in these countries will report things as they are.

From a geopolitical competition point of view a key problem is that Western democracies have open social media that anti-Western authoritarian regimes can troll and intoxicate with convenient fake news, but Western democracies can't do the same against them. Western democratic regimes are compelled to compensate this asymmetry one way or another, but unfortunately the easiest way they can do it is by turning authoritarian as their rivals. — neomac

Or then, they can try to

a) Instill social cohesion, understand the utter peril of political polarization and how cheap shots at your competing parties can backfire when the political sides don't respect them. Get the real support of their people, don't just assume that if they won some election, they don't have to think about the people until the next elections.

b) genuinely answer to the worries of the people and take these seriously on both sides of the aisle.

c) and the best thing is to tell things how they are. Don't lie. Have the ability that if the country finds itself on really tight spot, the opposition can and the administration can set differences aside and agree on the large issue, even if this naturally gives a lot of points to the ruling parties.

d) Avoid gerrymandering and avoid situations when one party can take all the power. Coalition governments are usually better than one-party governments, especially those that can pass through the representative all kinds of laws. — ssu

First of all, you are still reasoning from what is desirable not from what is feasible. All you just wrote deserves hours of universal standing ovation, sure. Unfortunately the point is that you yourself are 100% unable to do yourself what you expect politicians to do (like telling what they think to be the truth honestly, persuasively and to the best of humans’ knowledge). Not only, you are 100% unable to find politicians that do what you wish them to do. Not only, you are also 100% unable to persuade enough people to make win politicians which would do what you wish them to do. Can you prove me wrong now? Tomorrow? In one week or month or year?
I think that realistic understanding of politics and political competition and debate should start from this very basic fact. This truth should curb any temptation to assess politicians’ performance more subjectively, namely based on what we think it’s desirable independently from what they actually can do. At least in a philosophy forum.
Secondly, politicians do not move in a vacuum of pre-existing contingent cultural and historical factors that constrain and shape their options. Politicians have to work with what they have not with what they wish they had, and with what is attainable given available means and uncertainties not with what they wish they could attain. If Trump has been elected despite being a “fascist douche” and is now able to centralise power in his hands maybe as no other American president could in the past, it would be more enlightening to dig into the pre-existing historical and geopolitical circumstances which favoured his rise to power. And explore his options for achieving what he has promised to achieve to satisfy his supporters better than available alternatives. I’m afraid neither gerrymandering nor the peril of political polarization is the issue among pro-Trump supporters, lobbies and trusted advisors (like Miran or Musk).

Europe just needs to work on developing its relationship with China.

Not only, you are 100% unable to find politicians that do what you wish them to do. Not only, you are also 100% unable to persuade enough people to make win politicians which would do what you wish them to do. — neomac

Well, in my country politicians do act like that.

For starters, they understand that they will get to power only by forming a coalition. Now if they go on and personally attack other politicians ad hominem and basically dehumanize other parties, they will surely now that the party won't have anything to do with you and the politician will be your enemy for the rest of your life. The kind of attacks and then total turnarounds that happen in US politics would be treated as utter dishonesty and spinelessness. Sorry, but we don't have that fake Professional wrestling theatre that State side Americans have and love so much.

It's the US that has a severe problem with it's citizens thinking that their real enemy is their own government. That's just a bizarre, unhealthy state which leaves you prone to attacks by your enemies. We here know what a real enemy looks like. We might not like everything the government does, but it still isn't the enemy our grandfathers fought.

This truth should curb any temptation to assess politicians’ performance more subjectively, namely based on what we think it’s desirable independently from what they actually can do. At least in a philosophy forum. — neomac

In a philosophy forum politicians performance should be assessed objectively. You can go to social media and talk with your friends about what subjectively they mean to you.

Secondly, politicians do not move in a vacuum of pre-existing contingent cultural and historical factors that constrain and shape their options. — neomac

Yes. And that's why in some countries politicians kill each other and are surrounded by armed gangs. We might call the warlords, but actually they are politicians.

If Trump has been elected despite being a “fascist douche” and is now able to centralise power in his hands maybe as no other American president could in the past, it would be more enlightening to dig into the pre-existing historical and geopolitical circumstances which favoured his rise to power. — neomac

And that has actually been discussed here on the forum, if you haven't noticed. January 6th was the only a deer-in-the-headlights moment for other politicians. But now Trump is far more ready in what he tries to do. What now he doing is simply bypassing everything and using executive power as a king, and the whole system is getting again this "deer-in-the-headlights" moment and calling "he cannot do it". And that's why it seems he's doing so much, because there isn't any "separation of powers", the Congress is just an annoying speed bump and it's power, just as the courts, should be taken away.

So have that civil war everybody has wanted and talked so much about.

Europe just needs to work on developing its relationship with China. — frank

Europe should get it's shit together at first.

I really think that Europe should first approach Canada, as they have to take the same shit from Trump as we do and don't want to cut all relations with Americans. Remember that Trump won only a narrow victory, and there are many Americans that don't like Trump either.

Europe should get it's shit together at first. — ssu

If you mean they need to further integrate, I think they will, with China as an ally. It's their only choice. Europe couldn't withstand an attack from the US.

really think that Europe should first approach Canada, — ssu

Not a chance

Remember that Trump won only a narrow victory, and there are many Americans that don't like Trump either. — ssu

I think Vance comes next, and he much younger and smarter than Trump. Time to start learning Chinese.

If you mean they need to further integrate, I think they will, with China as an ally. It's their only choice. — frank

No. It's not our only choice. It's not something that China would be so enthusiastic about either. We can have normal ties to China and if they go all imperialistic, then we can do our share. But you don't need to be allies with them and likely they wouldn't be excited about the idea either. Russia is a containable threat and the US isn't a threat. It's just Trump that is annoying.

The EU (+ UK and Norway) could easily give twice as much as they are giving now. They just should really build the defense industry up, simply put it. They could easily make the investment to defense, if they think defense is an important matter. Heck, Sweden ALREADY had actual nuclear weapons! It's not so hard.

It's hard to believe, but that was the fact. I already posted this, but it's history that usually isn't well known.

Not a chance — frank

Why not? It's just allies of the US getting closer to each other and contemplating on how to respond to a situation where Americans have these fits of Trump.

I think Vance comes next, and he much younger and smarter than Trump. — frank

We are just one month into MAGA paradise. We haven't even had the trade wars. Americans have not tasted the victory of tariffs when they buy food at the local grocery. Believe me, a lot can happen with Trump around. Like living another month in MAGA paradise.

Well, let's revisit it in 10 years and see which of us understood the situation better. :razz:

Four years would do it. Perhaps when Trump is 82 years old and sworn in for his third term. Then we can discus this again. Hopefully you or I will find this thread and continue it then.

I don't think he'll want a third term. He'll just want lots of pardons. But yes, let's reassess in four years.

Vice President JD Vance said in his speech at the conference on Friday that there was a new sheriff in town, President Donald Trump. He brought with him a change in the relationship between the United States and its European allies on the Atlantic.

The vice president then accused European leaders of censorship of social media, interference in elections and violations of the rights of Christians. “I believe that ignoring people, ignoring their concerns or, even worse, shutting down the media, blowing up elections or keeping the public out of the political process does not provide any protection,” Vance said. “In fact, I think that is one of the surest ways to destroy democracy,” — News Interview

Is this normal in tone and content coming from an ally? Sounds to me as another attempt to destabilize the European democracies, just as Musk is trying to do with his support of the extreme right wing. Who would benefit from the resulting confusion among the European leadership?

Is this normal in tone and content coming from an ally? — magritte

No.

But very normal from a populist politician who will talk to his base all times and who doesn't give a speech on his role or on what the subject issue of the conference is about.

Who would benefit from the resulting confusion among the European leadership? — magritte

They want the MAGA revolution to happen in Europe too.

They want the MAGA revolution to happen in Europe too — ssu

Maybe they do, but perhaps they only need to create sufficient confusion and division to paralyze disjointed multinational leadership.

MAGA is a nationalist movement that encourages authoritarian cult leadership. Here in the US, Musk is busy downsizing government bureaucracy by swinging an executioners axe. Unfortunately no limbs are spared. Even essential services will be crippled.

A similar MEUGA might push European unification into overdrive to rebuild a militarily self-sufficient world power. As Trump already suggested military expenditure needs to dramatically increase. But instead of 5% the military expenditure should be nearer to 25% or even more if Europe is to survive.

Musk is busy downsizing government bureaucracy — magritte

By share of the budget, wages for the federal workforce are between 4.5% and 6.6% of the federal budget, depending on how you count employees. There are about 1,870,000 employees. In order for Musk to make a significant dent in the bureaucracy, he might have to clear out about 500,000 workers.

Cutting 5,000 here, 20,000 there; eliminating such agencies as USAID, and so on, isn't going to achieve much toward trimming the bureaucracy.

One gets a bigger bang for the buck by disabling agencies like the IRS, which is laying off 6000 more recent hires (made largely under Biden, I would guess). Weak agencies just can't do as much to get in the way of liars, thieves, knaves, and scoundrels as strong, fully staffed agencies can.

disabling agencies like the IRS, which is laying off 6000 more recent hires (made largely under Biden, I would guess) — BC

It would make sense for the DOGE to use AI to sift through administrative records of government contracts for suspected waste and corruption. Younger people with marketable skills and near retirees took the bonus and bailed out. They're eliminating social services as 'Marxist' and 'woke' agencies as promised to Trump supporters. But I can't tell how they so quickly single out individuals to be fired. If it is other than competence, is it by tweets? I imagine they're keeping all Trump supporters.

Not a chance — frank

I'm Jutlandian and have lived in Canuckia for a couple of decades.
I can tell you with some confidence that Trump has, in my experience, insignificant support.
Granted, that's not so much about the US in general, it's about Trump, applying as he's doing his thing.
Lists of what you might not want to buy have been distributed, which isn't something I've seen before.
Chance? Yep. Redirecting to Europe has already been discussed. But we'll see.

Trump calls Canada “serious contender” to become 51st US state (— Global News · Feb 13, 2025 · 1m:40s)

In general, the Canucks have been growing tired of the noise and crap for some time.

But I can't tell how they so quickly single out individuals to be fired. — magritte

High-level administrators can be singled out because they have a public record of statements--but that's a small number. Most federal employees are getting fired in bulk, by classification. For instance, new employees, or old employees with new jobs--are "probationary" for a period of time. It's easy to identify them as a group and fire them.

The big problem with firing 5000 people who are probationary is that these employees--trying to prove themselves--are probably the most hard working and diligent.

Musk and his raiders haven't had time to go through the files in the Personnel Department (or Human Resources) and pick out people to fire on the basis of performance efficiency or ideological stances. That could be done, but that would require time.

There is a paper trail, no doubt, but most of the records needed to fire en-masse are computerized. It doesn't take AI or a super computer.

Waste, Fraud, and Abuse takes time to ferret out. One can't just walk into the Treasury Department, look around, and say -- "We find waste and fraud here." A) there's probably not much fraud, and B) what is 'waste' anyway? Musk is abuse personified.

A similar MEUGA might push European unification into overdrive to rebuild a militarily self-sufficient world power. As Trump already suggested military expenditure needs to dramatically increase. But instead of 5% the military expenditure should be nearer to 25% or even more if Europe is to survive. — magritte

I'd say that the opposite is likely. What would be in the interest of the "tech-bro oligarchy", as we could call it, would be a Europe of divided and weak nation states that would be forced to accept the dominant position of the oligarchic service providers that control online media and AI.

It would make sense for the DOGE to use AI to sift through administrative records of government contracts for suspected waste and corruption. Younger people with marketable skills and near retirees took the bonus and bailed out. They're eliminating social services as 'Marxist' and 'woke' agencies as promised to Trump supporters. But I can't tell how they so quickly single out individuals to be fired. If it is other than competence, is it by tweets? I imagine they're keeping all Trump supporters. — magritte

This is assuming that what Musk is doing is still part of the "normal" political game and the goal of his actions is ultimately to deliver on political promises and shore up the power of the administration.

However, it is also possible that the goal is not part of the normal political landscape and instead what we're seeing is a deliberate attempt to make the federal government ultimately unable to fulfill many of its roles and thus provide an argument for replacing most of it with private contractors.

One gets a bigger bang for the buck by disabling agencies like the IRS, which is laying off 6000 more recent hires (made largely under Biden, I would guess). Weak agencies just can't do as much to get in the way of liars, thieves, knaves, and scoundrels as strong, fully staffed agencies can. — BC

Or they'll have to buy services from "the market" which will really mean Musk, Bezos etc.

Wasn't there already a tweet by Musk offering services from X to take over from a government agency he weakened?

But I can't tell how they so quickly single out individuals to be fired. If it is other than competence, is it by tweets? — magritte

Strictly by the numbers, so far as I can tell. ‘Fire all your probationary employees’ (because they have less tenure.) ‘Reduce your staff by 80%’. The vetting for Trump Loyalty is made for new hires, as I see it. MAGA loyalists among those being let go will be by-catch. But if anyone wants to join the public service, they better answer that they know the 2020 election was stolen.

"Ready and willing to invest a lot more in our security."

And Rutte has said it as secretary general of NATO.

Did he throw down the gauntlet and the EU took up the challenge?

About half a year ago I remarked the following:

As I said, the US is seeking to prepare its pivot to Asia by leaving long-lasting conflict as its parting gift to Europe. — Tzeentch

And what do we see?

The US is extricating itself from the Ukraine debacle, while Washington sycophants like NATO Secretary Mark Rutte are preaching that 'Europe must prepare for war!', even though public support for deeper involvement, or indeed any involvement at all, is and has been thin, and is thinning further still.

There is no greater threat to European security than for it to involve itself directly into a conflict with Russia while Uncle Sam is standing on the sideline harboring ulterior motives.


I've predicted this would happen.

Washington sensed that Europe would start to slip its grasp as its clique is being ousted under pressure of popular revolts (as we see happen all over Europe), which meant that Europe would go from obedient vassal to potential geopolitical rival.

Washington's Ukraine policy (starting from 2008 onward) has had as its purpose to drive a wedge between Europe and Russia, and to sow the seeds for large-scale war, giving Washington a trump card to play which would deny both Europe and Russia from becoming 'laughing thirds' to any future US-China conflict.

Washington has successfully created a highly-volatile situation in Eastern Europe, and is now extricating itself. The last step is for Uncle Sam's 'Trans-Atlantic' clique (Rutte, Marcon, Scholz, etc.) to goad Europe into taking on primary responsibility in a conflict that bears a major risk of spiraling into a direct confrontation with Russia.

Worse still, Washington will soon be able to throw fuel on the fire to its heart's content, since it will no longer be party to the conflict.


Europe has and has had a massive blindspot for the type of games Washington likes to play, and it's going to end up like every other nation that naively jumped into bed with Uncle Sam: Vietnam, Afghanistan, Ukraine, etc.

Europe's next.

(Thought I'd post this in this thread as well, since it's quite relevant to Trump's election.)

Maybe they do, but perhaps they only need to create sufficient confusion and division to paralyze disjointed multinational leadership. — magritte

Well, that multinational leadership was what the US had, and this is what they are trashing here.

Trump simply doesn't understand the backlash his arrogant and contemptuous behavior is having. Ukrainians are rallying around their president in the spat that Trump and Zelenskyi are having and even Trudeau's popularity have risen thanks to the 51st state nonsense.

The US is extricating itself from the Ukraine debacle, while Washington sycophants like NATO Secretary Mark Rutte are preaching that 'Europe must prepare for war!', even though public support for deeper involvement, or indeed any involvement at all, is and has been thin, and is thinning further still. — Tzeentch

Trump going to bed with Putin will likely have the opposing effect on Europe. It all depends if European wake up. We are quite aware of the threat that Russia poses and so is Poland, it's countries like Germany, France and the UK that should respond and approach their people. The silliness of this being "warmongering" when Russia is making hybrid attacks on NATO countries is simply Russian propaganda.

Russia will negotiate peace only when continuing the war can lead to a worse situation for Russia. Trump handing over Ukraine on a silver platter to Putin isn't a solution, and luckily the Ukrainians understand this. The Trump surrender plan won't go anywhere. This surrender monkey gave the Taleban Afghanistan, so we have to understand that he wants to surrender Ukraine to Russia. Time to have that spine, Europe!

There is no greater threat to European security than for it to involve itself directly into a conflict with Russia while Uncle Sam is standing on the sideline harboring ulterior motives. — Tzeentch

The aid given to Ukraine has been very small, and Europe has already given more than a half of that aid to Ukraine. Russian advances have been minimal and it's incapable of now rapidly taking over Ukraine.

If I am correct that Washington is assuming Europe will slip its grasp, you understand that Washington will have a vested interest in using whatever influence it has left to make this war as drawn-out and destructive as possible, so as to hamstring both its rivals: Europe and Russia?

Trump is simply living in a delusional world where he can make solutions like the Mar-a-Gaza or have Canada be the 51st state. That the US can elect such idiots is the problem.

There's still sanity in Washington DC, just like Republican Senator Wicker, who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee



As he said: "Putin cannot be trusted. He is a warcriminal and should be in jail for the rest of his life, if not executed."

That's the correct thinking.

Trump can perhaps see everybody else as his rivals, except Bibi's Israel or Victor's Hungary. But he lives in his ignorant senile dreamworld were his enemies are his friends and the Allies of the US are it's enemies, because they got so well with Obama.

As he said: "Putin cannot be trusted. He is a warcriminal and should be in jail for the rest of his life, if not executed."

That's the correct thinking. — ssu

It's a bit rich coming from the Washington elite.

But Trump is just a temporary phenomenon, and he is exactly what the Washington elite need to justify their 180 on Ukraine and pivot to Asia. "The US didn't want this, it was all mad man Trump!"

In general, the Canucks have been growing tired of the noise and crap for some time. — jorndoe

I can understand that. I'm American and I'm tired of it.

Not only, you are 100% unable to find politicians that do what you wish them to do. Not only, you are also 100% unable to persuade enough people to make win politicians which would do what you wish them to do. — neomac

Well, in my country politicians do act like that.


For starters, they understand that they will get to power only by forming a coalition. Now if they go on and personally attack other politicians ad hominem and basically dehumanize other parties, they will surely now that the party won't have anything to do with you and the politician will be your enemy for the rest of your life. The kind of attacks and then total turnarounds that happen in US politics would be treated as utter dishonesty and spinelessness. Sorry, but we don't have that fake Professional wrestling theatre that State side Americans have and love so much.

It's the US that has a severe problem with it's citizens thinking that their real enemy is their own government. That's just a bizarre, unhealthy state which leaves you prone to attacks by your enemies. We here know what a real enemy looks like. We might not like everything the government does, but it still isn't the enemy our grandfathers fought. — ssu

Maybe I wasn’t clear, but it’s not Finnish politicians that you are criticising but American politicians right? (“If you know politics better than the politicians you so bitterly complain about, why don't you yourself fix politics right now?”). Even if Finnish politicians are as virtuous as you claim (the rise of right-wing populism in Finland, pro-Russian sentiment and problematic future of NATO makes me doubt Finns are immune from growing political polarisation and controversies), I would look into historical conditions (like the historical experience of Russian pressure) and geopolitical conditions (being a small and relatively homogenous community, being abundant of natural resources and nuclear energy which have sustained a generous and distributed welfare system, high standards of education, technological progress) that favoured the emergence of such cooperative political environment so far. But, more to the point, how much of their satisfying political performance compared to other states’ leaders, does actually empower Finnish politicians to instill wider social cohesion among nations, make them understand the utter peril of political polarization and get the real support of their people, genuinely answer to the worries of the people, and that the best thing is to tell things how they are, don't lie? how much of their satisfying political performance compared to other states’ leaders, does empower Finnish politicians to influence more than being influenced by major world crisis, like fixing the Ukrainian-Russian conflict, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and geopolitical competition between Big Powers like the US, Russia and China?
I’m asking also because their example doesn’t seem to inspire all political leaders to become more like Finnish political leaders, right? And that’s why to me assessing the chances of a collective change in society or politics based on decontextualised analogies as you do sounds really misleading to me (it sounds to me as arguing something like: “man, why don’t buy a Ferrari if you like it so much? If I bought a Ferrari so can you, what’s the big deal?”).

I agree. Which is precisely why I proposed the prohibition on using personal data as a free resource to allow influence on an industrial scale. Your previously unedited post (thanks for this improvement) seems to consider me hopelessly out of touch with just about everything. So what would you propose to do about this? — Benkei

In this forum I’m more in a contemplative mode and therefore I’m more interested to better understand pros/cons of proposals than to actually “propose” anything to anybody. And this attitude helps me understand that politics may be replete of thorny tradeoffs to make as much as various degrees of tolerance for failure, especially of trust. Of course, the heigher one’s expectations are the easier it is to remain disappointed.

Concerning your proposal, I see three main issues:
1. Business, politicians, and law enforcement are compelled to collect and access personal information to shape and target their business/political/enforcement activity. As I said controlling the information flow is of paramount importance for politicians in democracy as in authoritarian regimes. In democracy, freedom of information, public right to know and security concerns can be always be invoked in democracies (also manipulatively of course). One can at best wish to reconcile this with protecting a subset of personal data, “private data”, hence the regulatory solution.
2. However depending on the technological evolution (especially in the Information Technology field) regulations risk always to lag behind and make it tricky for an executive power to enforce them effectively. Even more so if regulations vary from country to country (e.g. in Europe rules forbid European companies from collecting data about everyone but American do not forbid American companies to collect data from European people). Besides disruptive technologies like Artificial Intelligence may find smart ways to work around data classified by regulations as private, especially if AI algorithms do not need more personal data to improve user profiling (AI algorithms might be able already or soonish to successfully profile users on the fly even with little personal input from them).
3. Geopolitical competition: preventing social platforms to collect personal data will impact the interference of foreign powers propaganda but also that of local governments. However if a Russian-style, China-style, Iran-style information control over social networks is a valid instrument of control and for nurturing domestic consensus, while interference in democratic social platforms through troll armies, bots and influencers, and trough more traditional means outside social platforms (e.g. corruption of politicians and media) is enough to create the information war asymmetries that are advantageous to their regimes, then prohibiting the usage of personal data didn’t help off-set this asymmetric advantage. In other words, as long as the information flow in Western-style democracies has certain features that by institutional design can be hacked by authoritarian regimes against Western democracies themselves (not vice versa), and independently from Western people or politicians’ best intentions or education, prohibiting social platforms from collecting data won’t off-set this asymmetric advantage which authoritarian regimes can exploit. While turning authoritarian can more easily offset this asymmetric advantage: I think Trump is on this path. Hence my sarcasm: those Westerners who didn’t like hypocritical Western-style propaganda and censorship because at least Russians are non-hypocritical (whatever that means) hoping to get less manipulation and censorship from their Western governments by voicing populist outrage everywhere, including hackable social platforms, now they are risking to experience a rising trend of non-hypocritical Russian-style propaganda and censorship inside the West, then we will see if that's really what they prefer. This makes look such Westerners more as part of the problem than being part of the solution since their moral outrage was intentionally aimed at getting better Western leaders and policies but eventually it worked de facto to discredit Western institutions themselves on world stage and aggravate their dysfunctionality.

Even if Finnish politicians are as virtuous as you claim (the rise of right-wing populism in Finland, pro-Russian sentiment and problematic future of NATO makes me doubt Finns are immune from growing political polarisation and controversies), — neomac

The migration issue has naturally been a similar discussion as in other parts of Europe, however the True Finns -party, which is the local populist party, is and has been accepted into coalitions and actually is now in the present administration. However unlike the typical populists, they are all for Ukraine. Here is the party leader giving a speech to the Ukrainian parliament and getting a standing ovation:



If you would listen to the speech (with English captions), you think this populist favor what Trump just did? Heck, the guy has been fined for "hate speech", so we know the woke police too that painted him as the dangerous far right. Sorry, but here in Finland we do have also unity, and not braindead polarization at all levels, even if the culture war issues have been discussed(agued).

But, more to the point, how much of their satisfying political performance compared to other states’ leaders, does actually empower Finnish politicians to instill wider social cohesion among nations, make them understand the utter peril of political polarization and get the real support of their people, genuinely answer to the worries of the people, and that the best thing is to tell things how they are, don't lie? — neomac

Quite confusing what you say here. First of all, domestic politics should be left to sovereign states. You don't start messing in others own politics and work with all administrations from one country. It's an issue that at normal relations you wouldn't touch at all (unlike Vance did). But to get wider cohesion, well, basically Finland got Sweden also to join in NATO, even if Sweden had to haggle a lot with Turkey.

In other words, as long as the information flow in Western-style democracies has certain features that by institutional design can be hacked by authoritarian regimes against Western democracies themselves (not vice versa), and independently from Western people or politicians’ best intentions or education, prohibiting social platforms from collecting data won’t off-set this asymmetric advantage which authoritarian regimes are benefiting from as authoritarian. — neomac

First, do cut down with the sentences. Very hard to read.

Secondly, a functioning democracy, a republic, needs a lot from both it's citizens and it's institutions. Those institutions have to function so that the citizens appreciate them, which isn't something that you get only with free elections. Those countries incapable of having a functioning republic will have the extremely stupid idea of authoritarianism being the solution. It won't be, it will make just things far worse, because an authoritarian state can easily just let loose unrestricted corruption, oligarchy or nepotism.

So turning authoritarian can more easily offset this asymmetric advantage: I think Trump is on this path. — neomac

That's a path to hell. And the US has chosen that path. At worst, they really might have the civil war looming in the future. The more likely outcome is that the US is more like the countries in Latin America.

Are there any "legal" ways or circumstances that the USA can be manipulated (by its own president and /or Congress) into stalling/ deferring/ overriding or rejecting ( the result of) presidential elections ( such as Ukraine has of delaying elections while under martial law?)

A question worth imaginatively considering?

curious smile