This is another version of the "no reason" comment. The Russians clearly believed and told us otherwise, and the idea that a great power goes to war for "no reason" is just not a serious argument. — Tzeentch

You're constantly arguing that European politicians are stupid and / or incompetent, but entertaining the possibility that the russian leadership made a stupid or incompetent decision is "not serious". Why not?

It's quite easy to see from the Russian point of view what was changing in Ukraine: Ukraine was in the process of being trained and armed by NATO to a point where Russia's standing army would no longer be able to intervene. During the initial invasion Ukrainian forces outnumbered the Russians (est. 200,000+ vs. 100,000 - 190,000 respectively).

Coupled with NATO rhetoric of incorporating Ukraine, it was clear from their point of view they were expecting NATO to create a fait accompli. — Tzeentch

What kind of fait accompli could NATO create?

It is entirely plausible that Russia saw the window for military intervention in Ukraine closing. That was the prelude for many a military adventure through history. But that alone doesn't explain the decision for a military escalation in the first place.

Prior to the invasion, plenty of people believed Russia would be using their military for another round of gunboat diplomacy, which was a reasonable assumption. Russia of course also had the option to offer to abandon the Donbas separatists in exchange for a commitment to a neutral Ukraine with some kind of economic deal thrown in. In view of the pivot to Asia, the latter choice seems especially appealing.

Insisting that there was "no reason" and that Putin is some mad man is not a serious argument. — Tzeentch

I did add the word "particular", as in nothing had dramatically changed for Russia's position in Ukraine.

Whether or not Putin is a mad man is immaterial to the argument that the decision defies conventional wisdom (even the unconventional conventional wisdom of Mearsheimer).

It doesn't. Ukraine and especially Crimea are of great geopolitical and historical importance to Russia and always has been. They've fought several wars over them. — Tzeentch

That is not really the point though. The point is that Russia had no particular reason to invade in 2022.

No realist should have been surprised that the Russians after over a decade of warnings chose to use force to secure what they believed to be their vital strategic interests. — Tzeentch

And yet everyone was surprised. Easy to retroactively claim that it was all predictable, but no-one did predict it.

In fact, Mearsheimer predicted it almost ten years in advance — Tzeentch

He didn't. What he predicted was that Russia would use political, economic and military pressure to either force Ukraine back into it's orbit or "wreck" it. That is indeed what happened between 2014 and 2022.

These moves were already highly aggressive but, as Mearsheimer has argued, can still be put into a geopolitical framework, namely his offensive realism. Hence prior to 2022 you could still somewhat plausibly claim that Putin is a masterful geopolitical strategist.

The invasion in 2022 in contrast is a massive gamble with no clear political endgame. It's the kind of open-ended unpredictable warfare rational players avoid.

To use a historical example, after the Munich conference you could plausibly claim that Hitler was a master strategist, skillfully wringing the maximum out of his opponents for minimal cost. The subsequent annexation of the rest of Czechoslovakia was already a high risk gamble, but could still be justified as an acceptable risk. Once Hitler invaded Poland though it became clear that rather than a master strategist, he was actually a compulsive gambler.

Ukraine is more important to Russia than maintaining the status quo. That's exactly what they told us over the course of some fifteen years.

Striking such a sarcistic tone while losing sight of the most basic elements to this conflict is why I can't take you seriously. — Tzeentch

What I find bizarre is that you keep switching between different premises.

On the one hand, the geopolitical realities are supposed to be impersonal and irresistible forces. But when you have to explain why events don't conform to these forces, you suddenly invoke very personal and contingent reasons. European diplomats are incapable of even basic solutions. Unspecified actors are influenced by the US in unspecified ways. Europeans are "acting in bad faith" or are "ignoring realities".

Meanwhile while the russian side supposedly has an interest in working relations with Europe due to the inevitable US-China conflict, "Ukraine is more important". But this just seems to beg the question: How could it be more important than the "fundamental power struggle of our time"?

From my perspective you're building a complicated scaffold to prop up a theory which has a giant hole in the middle: namely that the invasion of Ukraine defies traditional "geopolitical reason", including the version championed by Mearsheimer.

The solution is extremely simple: combine the creation of a deterrent with de-escalating rhetoric and with dialogue with Russia. — Tzeentch

You mean like the Minsk accords? But then:

Yet, we now know that the Europeans were acting in bad faith as far back as the Minsk Accords. — Tzeentch

Damn Europeans can get anything right. Of course all Russia had to do to ensure somewhat cordial relations with the West was to not overtly escalate the conflict and keep it's bargaining chips in eastern Ukraine.

Luckily:

These are geopolitical realities - forces of nature, almost - that they cannot ignore (though admittedly, Europe has been a king at ignoring geopolitical realities). — Tzeentch

So there's no way Russia would blow up the status quo by doing something as silly as launching a full ground invasion of it's neighbor. That would keep the US attached to Europe, force Russia to deepen it's ties to China and ensure that every European politician who argued for deterrence and cooperation with Russia is instantly discredited.

I'm so glad we live in a world where the forces of nature obtain and not some bizarre and unpredictable place where domestic politics and even the mindset of individual powerful people can shape major world events.

Oh absolutely. People want something to change, this has been visible for a while now. But neither of the big political blocks is able to deliver, and that goes for much of Europe, too.

It was anathema to neoliberalism, so anti-establishment. I think we're just quibbling over who the establishment actually is? — frank

No, I don't disagree that the rhethoric is anti-establishment. But I'm not seeing any evidence that it's connected to any actual conviction. Trump did enact some tariffs on China, but he doesn't have a plan to restructure the entire US economy. As I said he has good populist instincts, but what's his actual plan to combat neoliberalism?

And this is how it always goes with you. When pressed on the specifics you invoke your interlocutors ignorance and run away.

In fact it's because I'm aware of their arguments (and the fact that they contain no predictions for the war we could yet test) that I'm asking you for a justification.

But no matter. The core point remains that the mere fact that there's a Ukraine war at all is a fatal flaw in the theory that Europe and Russia are natural allies.

Sure. Let me know when that happens. — Tzeentch

Both Europe and Russia are demonstrably acting against the interests the theory prescribes for them. The only explanation given for this is that the US is somehow engineering all of it.

These people have been making accurate predictions about where this war would lead since Day 1. — Tzeentch

What predictions? Be specific please.

Such theories come with a risk though, a kind of epistemological moral hazard. Once you've started ascribing some events to an unnatural manipulation, there's nothing stopping you from doing so every time events fail to adhere to the theory.

I think a lot of it is the allure of the grand narrative, in this case the grand narrative about the "pivot to Asia".

It simplifies international relations into a zero sum power play, with nations essentially as blank slates. That can be a useful tool of course, but it ignores stuff like economic structure, history and culture.

Crucially, the idea that Russia and Europe are natural partners in a kind of "third block" only makes sense if you not only ignore the nature of the Russian state as it now exists, but also the lack of much economic synergy. Russia can replace neither the US nor China as an economic partner to Europe. All it can offer is cheap raw materials. It's neither a big market nor a big manufacturer. If China and the US go onto a direct collision course, Russia is in no position to materially soften the blow for Europe.

Nor is a security partnership plausible given the military capacities and the way the Russian elite justifies it's rule (as a bulwark against westernisation).

But these are all details. Economic reality demands that the US pivots to Asia and thus it demands Russia and Europe forming a block. If that doesn't happen it must be the result of some manipulation.

All the other contradictions just follow from the premise that the theory trumps the details. How can the following statements be reconciled?

In other words, there is no reason Europe should treat Russia as the big threat. The only point Russia becomes a threat is if we A. constantly play our cards wrong, and B. let mercurial powers like the US whisper into our ears. — Tzeentch

Sure. But it needs to do so without pointlessly antagonizing Russia, otherwise rearmament is going to lead to mutual tensions and militarization (which we are already in the process of), which will not achieve security, but the exact opposite: war — Tzeentch

Ordinarily we would suppose that war is a threat. But the war here is supposed to be the result of an unnatural manipulation by the US and thus not actually a threat by Russia.

They rigged their primary to get him nominated. They've been running a scam for three years. It blew up. But he is the legitimately nominated candidate. The insiders threatened him with God knows what, and he gave in. That's a coup. — fishfry

I think we just don't agree on what a coup is. To me, not every power struggle that the incumbent loses is a coup.

To me, a coup is an organised movement using illegal or at least extra legal means to seize power swiftly, creating a fait accompli that pre-empts organised resistance. Usually by isolating the centre of power and preventing it from rallying it's supporters.

The slowly building pressure on Biden under which his campaign ultimately collapsed doesn't fit, imho.

So we don't actually have a president, just a figurehead run by an invisible cabal? We all knew that was true, but isn't it significant that this has now been demonstrated in public? — fishfry

I don't really understand the show of indignation here. I'm sure you didn't just realise that the USA have a huge bureaucratic apparatus and that the president isn't actually required to make day to day decisions?

The cabal is less invisible than ignored. Most people just don't really think about how the government actually runs.

And in a crisis, is there or isn't there an executive decision maker? And who, exactly, is that right now? — fishfry

That is a much better question. It's impossible to know without having information from within the "war room". But even being in a situation where you're no longer sure whether the president is still capable of making emergency decisions is bad.

It's half a coup. There's no president. This is very unseemly and there are great risks to this country right now. The Dems have arguably committed treason. They didn't lawfully 25A him. They did something unlawful. You want to defend that, knock yourself out. — fishfry

I agree it's unseemly. I'm not as worried though. At the end of the day there have always been weaker and stronger presidents. Under a weak president, power will tend to devolve to the VP, department heads and advisors. The fact that Biden's weakness is age related doesn't in and of itself make it more dangerous.

I remember that everyone agreed that GW Bush was a fucking idiot. But noone called it treason.

Supposedly we were going to feed Ukraine weapons to hurt the Russian military so they couldn't pull another stunt like Ukraine, yet it's the European militaries which are completely stripped and the Russians who now have an army several times the size of their peace-time standing army. — Tzeentch

Just because no-one has challenged this false claim yet: Europe's militaries are not "stripped". Most frontline equipment that has been handed over has been old models from storage.

E.g. Germany handed over just 18 modern tanks out of a total of about 300. France has 400 modern MBTs. The UK has about 200, and handed over 14.

Obviously the European air forces, arguably the most important deterrent factor given NATO doctrine, are entirely intact.

Where Europe is "stripped" is in terms of ground based artillery (especially tube artillery) and ground based air defenses. This is a side effect of NATO doctrine and the threats western militaries have expected to face in the early 2000s. This will likely change as a result of the Ukraine war though.

One good thing if Trump wins: he’ll probably stop funding the war that the US provoked. That’ll save many Ukrainian lives. — Mikie

What you don't care about the russian lives it would safe?

If you listened to his speeches in 2016, the message was: we're going back to the 1960s and 70s in terms of job security. That was the positive vision he outlined. Obama commented on how his vision was impossible because the industrial infrastructure of America is already gone. I take it you missed that aspect of his first campaign. — frank

I do think it fits in, actually. It's nostalgia as a substitute for the future. Obama is ultimately correct here, though of course one can debate the details.

Basically unthinkable. It would be political suicide if something like that became public. — Tzeentch

Why? What do you think "the hard way" implies that makes it unthinkable? Power struggles within parties do happen, and they do often get pretty ugly, though not as often publicly ugly.

A lot more are calling it a coup than are claiming the earth is flat. What would you call it? — fishfry

A public pressure campaign? Why insist on a loaded word like "coup" when this is about who the candidate for the next election will be.

The Dems lied for three years to hid Biden's infirmity, then stabbed him in the back. When Nancy Pelosi comes to you and says, "We can do this the easy way or the hard way," and a letter is put out that you clearly didn't write, that's a coup. — fishfry

They stabbed him in the chest, not the back. It was very visible and very public. Nothing hidden or conspiratorial about it.

Even before the debate the common refrain was that Biden must demonstrate that he's not senile. He didn't. Biden had a lot of support at the time but he was not unassailable as the candidate. And in fact he failed to weather the storm. Nothing about this resembles a "coup", no organised group seized power in an orchestrated operation. One man lost his backing and the best placed person moved into the resulting vacuum.

Still no idea who is running the country. — fishfry

I mean probably the same people who run it most of the time? It's not like the president is required for day to day decisions.

Germany was a diseased society during Weimar with prostitution of all ages and shemale bars. Hitler campaigned exactly against that. How can someone who campaigns against a disease embody the pathologies? It can't, even if Hitler later came to embody different diseases. — Lionino

Oh, can you pinpoint for us when Hitler went from an anti-shemale-bar-campaigner to the guy who wanted to remake Europe according to his racial ideology?

Ironically, everything that the "grotesque, marginal" Göbbels said about Burgerland 100 years ago still applies today, and the entire planet would agree: — Lionino

Of all the things I did not expect to read to today, a reverent recitation of Goebbels (his name is actually written without the Umlaut), is probably the thing I expected the least.

i agree. I'm just more focused on what it means that there was so much popular support for him. He was telling people what they wanted to hear. Let's focus again on what that was: what did they want to hear? — frank

This kinda goes into the realm of armchair psychology, but my take from talking to Trump supporters is this: Trump is the emperor with no clothes, only he proudly displays his nakedness. His message is "we're all naked, don't be ashamed. In fact the ones who pretend they have clothes are the stupid ones."

His populism is otherwise pretty boilerplate stuff. It has a nationalist/ isolationist bend but nothing about it is unique. So I think the appeal lies mostly in the irreverence itself.

So if you think of Trump vs Harris in terms of the social forces involved, how do you read it? — frank

At the core of Trumpism is ultimately a deep pessimism, I think. That's what his apocalyptic rhetoric fuels. "Make America Great Again" is the slogan, but it's more like great rearguard action, fending off the encroaching decline. It's willing to throw formerly sacred values overboard because they cannot be saved anyways. So better throw them away now to get what advantage you can.

A counter-movement would be one that develops a positive vision for the future.

And Ukraine assumed it wasn't Georgia, and look where it got them.

Yes, but I think this is a conscious choice on the part of the more strategic thinkers among the Republicans.

Obviously, presidents or politicians who have some rapport with the Russians are useful. But once the US starts backing coups in Ukraine, it's over. — Tzeentch

If that's the world we live in, why on earth would Europe follow an independent foreign policy or seek rapprochement with Russia? It'd just be one US backed coup away from war, whereas in the US sphere of influence, Europe is fine.

I guess you could call Trump elite, but I wouldn't say he's part of the establishment, which is those who set foreign and domestic policies. His power came from public support that was so strong that establishment Republicans dared not antagonize him. In that way he's anti-establishment. The only reason he's not a revolutionary is that he couldn't pull it off. No? — frank

Trump as a person is not, or was not, part of the establishment. But since he also did not come with any formed policy, his actions ended up being mostly in favour of the republican establishment.

He has the irreverence and the populist instincts of a revolutionary, but not the conviction. So I guess we could say that he is not an establishment candidate, but he also doesn't care about being anti-establishment. As long as the establishment - in this case the republicans - stroke his ego he won't move against them.

Opening any kind of dialogue with the Russians would have been a sensible start. — Tzeentch

You mean like electing a president with good relations to Russia who proceeded to declare an end to further NATO ambitions? Because that is what happened in 2010.

When the former hegemon gets involved, I see little point in ascribing much agency to Ukraine. The United States has a track record of leading countries down the path of their own destruction. Ukraine is no exception. — Tzeentch

So what really are we talking about? If noone but the great powers really has any agency, then your entire argument seems kind of hollow. The only choice anyone has is which hegemon to court.

The move to change Ukraine's neutral status predates Russian military actions by some 6 years at least. — Tzeentch

So what should Ukraine have done to diffuse the tension? Declare they're no longer interested in joining NATO? Pass a law that affirms their neutrality?

Or is it all just about what Russia thinks the US intends?

Related to this:

Was changing Ukraine's neutral status a part of that deterrence? — Tzeentch

This talks about Ukraine in the passive, i.e. their neutral status is altered by third parties.

Some are calling it a coup. — fishfry

Some are saying the earth is flat.

Certainly if you saw this plot play out in some corrupt foreign country you'd call it what it is. — fishfry

Last I checked, the US government is still the same.

The last thing he said was that he is in the race to win it. Then we saw him creaking slowly up a flight of airplane stairs, and then someone posts his resignation letter on his X account, which is known to be run by staffers and not personally used by Joe. An image is flying around social media of his signature on his four recent executive actions, which do not match the signature on his letter. The letter does not bear the presidential seal. No photograph or video exists of him signing it. Then he disappeared totally for five days, officially recovering from covid. — fishfry

Why would it have been necessary to forge a resignation letter if he is incapacitated anyways?

If Biden is too impaired, even temporarily, to perform the duties of his office, the public has a right to know. And if he's not impaired, why haven't we even seen a still photograph of him in five days, let alone live video. — fishfry

They faked his voice but faking a still photograph is a step too far for the conspiracy? Or is this one of those conspiracies that is masterfully manipulating dozens of world leaders but leaves easily traceable evidence for random guys on the internet to find?

But what did happen to Biden? — fishfry

Old age.

This is the guy who got fourteen million votes in the Democratic primaries, and allegedly eighty one million in the 2020 general election. — fishfry

Oh so you believe the numbers that fit your view but the ones that do not are only "alleged"?

I don't want to hear anyone telling me that Donald Trump is a threat to Democracy again. — fishfry

Donald Trump is a threat to democracy.

The back-room party honchos decide what they want, and screw their own voters. — fishfry

Ok so the democrats rigged the primaries to get Biden the nomination, but also these primaries are now the legitimate will of the voters? That's having your cake and eating it.

I can see your point. But I still think that incumbency is very powerful. And if Joe is in as bad shape as he appears to be, it would be better for the country and certainly better for Kamala to just 25A the guy and be done with it. — fishfry

What difference does it make to the country? The net result is the same.

The political discourse "there" is right as usual. Hillary got millions of votes for being a woman, Obama for being black. Odds are that, if Hillary were Hilbert and Barack Obama were Barry O'Bryan, they wouldn't have won. — Lionino

Of course representing certain parts of the electorate is relevant, I did not want to dismiss that. Nevertheless, Kamala Harris wasn't randomly swept off the street because she fit a certain profile.

Thoughts about Kamala Harris? — Shawn

She is a woman, and thus automatically at a disadvantage. She's also of color, so the DEI-hire narrative writes itself. In fact if you ask in more right wing leaning circles, she's universally reviled already for being a supposed DEI-hire who allegedly has zero qualifications, and is stupid because her laugh sounds weird. That's unfortunately the level of political discourse we can expect.

Apart from that she seems solid, if nothing more. She has attracted significant left wing criticism for her policies as DA but that probably won't matter against Trump and is not something that I think most voters would care about deeply.

Really it's all about whether she can effectively deal with the fact that she is a woman.

I do not think she will be a strong candidate though. I think she would be a significantly stronger candidate if she hadn't been VP, because Biden's administration is not particularly popular. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I guess the deciding question would be whether the administration is popular enough among swing state voters.

I think the only way she isn't the nominee is if she pulls herself out. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Probably, yeah. She'll be hard to get past if she decides to push it. Nor Do I think the democrats could afford another public pressure campaign.

Edit: So I just read that she reacted to Biden's endorsement by saying she hopes to "earn and win" the nomination. So she considers herself in the race, but not the heir apparent. This leaves her space to back out, so at least she apparently does not intend to run come what may.

Honestly overall I think at this point the democrats should embrace chaos and focus on making the most grassroots-based choice possible. Find some way to let the base vote for a candidate, take the hands off the convention and just make it really, really obvious that you're not pushing anyone and whoever makes the best case wins.

I think such a spectacle might energize voters who are on the fence, but what do I know.

They're actually making lists of loyalists to plop into critical spots. I think they're serious. This isn't the old Republican party. — frank

Right, but that makes it a power grab, I don't see how it's anti-establishment. These are not revolutionaries, they're part of the elite cementing their (relative) power.

Exactly. The Democrats stand for the status quo. The parties switched roles (again). — frank

At least partially, yeah.

I don't think that's true. The political pendulum swings and the establishment is a dragging reflection of that. — frank

That's also true, but requires some amount of comparison either in space (other democracies around the world) or time. I just wanted to note that it's hard to make definitive statements around the terms "left", "right" or "centrist" because they don't have fixed definitions.

Which is weird considering the economy is booming. — frank

By the numbers it is. Lots of people seem to "feel" that something is deeply wrong though, and have been feeling that for some time.

People are still using right/left terminology, though. It's just that they've redefined it. — frank

Sure, they're still being used as shorthand, but whereas in the past those categories actually represented a social spectrum with voting behaviours changing from left to right as you travelled from poor to rich, they no longer do.

The new American right is skeptical of liberal democracy, which would have been a blasphemous position previously. They're populist and anti-establishment. They basically want to fire everyone in the US government who isn't loyal to their cause. They've already talked about how to defy the SCOTUS if they resist this transition. I don't know who the significant elites are in this situation, but it looks like the existing establishment has nothing to gain from this and quite a bit to lose. — frank

That's their rhetoric in any event. Though in my view, the republican party can hardly be anti-establishment given that they're half the establishment. It's not like they want to abolish their own position, they intend to remain an elite. They just want to extend their power.

So some part of the establishment has a lot to lose, but not all of it. The republicans will be fine. Their donors will be fine. Republicans aren't looking to curb the power of Elon Musk.

That's what I mean by multiple elites: the republicans represent one elite (the elite of wealth), leveraging the anger of one disadvantaged group, who favor a populist nationalism, to extend their influence at the expense of another elite - the "intellectual" elite whose power is less directly based on wealth but on influence in the media and in education.

I think that's because the present establishment is very centrist, isn't it? The rising movement is rightist. That's a big switch from the old days. Everything used to be pretty moderate. — frank

This is a difficult question to answer because of the unclear definition of the terms. We could say that the establishment is centrist by definition.

I'd say the current establishment is internationalist, economically liberal, socially progressive and bureaucratic. What's historically unusual is the socially progressive part. So in that sense yes, the different establishment also means a different counterculture. What's different is also that the rising right wing movement is not traditionally conservative but progressive in the sense that they want to actively change society.

For the American right, this is specifically about jobs. They want to stop immigration and force out all the illegal aliens presently here. That would up-end the economy, so it's bizarre that they're actually thinking about doing that. — frank

I think economic anxieties are a big part of it everywhere. And young people specifically are (seemingly) facing a world of dwindling resources and intensified competition, so that might be one reason for the change in attitude.

NATO used militarization and fanatical anti-Russian elements in Ukraine to create a fait accompli with regards to its NATO membership. The Russians are looking for guarantees that that won't happen again. — Tzeentch

I find it really confusing that you're ok with that.

The key to understanding how this is happening is to see the similarities between young Democrats and young Republicans. If you listen closely, you'll notice that they're saying the same thing: get out of Ukraine, get out of the Middle East, and focus on Main St. The people who are trying to say no to that are mainstream Democrats: Bill Clinton's people with their NAFTA and reduced support for the poor. — frank

I think what you're seeing is the trend away from the old left / right distinction and the movement towards a system of multiple elites with their respective supporting and opposed groups, as put forward by Piketty.

The situation used to be that young people tend to vote against the elite, i.e. for the left. This is no longer the case as experience in Europe already shows. But the voting behaviour will depend on whether the "elite" is identified as the economic elite or the academic elite.

In addition, the big wedge issue that defines politics in the non-asian industrialised nations seems to be migration. There seems to be a culture shift where younger voters, traditionally more accepting of social changes, including migration, are now more pessimistic about it.

It may be more of a matter of not having yet coordinated a effective response than of not being able to, but that is not a prediction. — Fooloso4

Fair enough, but they're running out of time.

It's still uncertain since Biden could very well stay in or drop out at this point but what more do you think could be done here? — Mr Bee

I think what I'm missing is some kind of action plan. Everyone seems to be content with voicing their concern but then the Biden circle has already made plenty clear they're not going to step aside.

So either there is some avenue to remove him, in which case they need to pursue it. Or there isn't in which case further complaining just hurts them. But what it looks like is they simply cannot figure out what to do.

Of course if you're talking about their inability to foresee Biden's age problems after RBG and even Feinstein months before he started running again, then yeah it is entirely a failure of leadership though that ship has already sailed. Complacency and arrogance from the ones at the top are what gave us Clinton in 2016 and Biden in 2024. — Mr Bee

I wonder why there hasn't been a grassroots movement to reform the party structure after 2016. Perhaps going after Trump was too easy and allowed the party to deflect the attention. It would explain the willingness to give Trump all the attention all the time.

Well said. And arguably the state of the democratic party is more worrying than the state of President Biden. That the party is not able to coordinate an effective response to Biden's flagging mental state is damning, especially since it's an entirely predictable scenario.

In retrospect it seems like warning signs have been accumulating since Obama's second term that the democrats are no longer able to effectively coordinate responses to challanges - like the refusal to allow Obama to fill a SC seat.

Then ask yourself: is now the Republican party really intent on wrecking democracy? All of them? — ssu

You're assuming they think of it as "wrecking democracy". They might instead consider it safeguarding democracy from the mob.

Consider some of the rhetoric right wing pundits have been putting out there: how the USA are not a democracy but actually a republic. And they mean to imply by this that only certain people - true Americans - should be allowed a say. It's a take that relies on very old concerns about the tyranny of the majority, only adopted to feature new villains.

He already won the primary election, meaning he has already been chosen to be the candidate. That simply cannot be erased because he is not winning in the general. — NOS4A2

You're talking about the procedure.

But the reason given does sound entirely democratic to me. People don't want to vote for him, therefore he shouldn't run.

His party is telling him to step aside because he’s doing bad in the polls, and for no other reason. — NOS4A2

Isn't that the most democratic reason you can have?

So in America, criminality is more acceptable than aging? — L'éléphant

You have to understand that the mindset is that all politicians are criminals, Trump's just the only one who's honest enough to be caught.

@Lionino

I just read it as "we locked the account and turned the contents over to law enforcement", given that he states they're fully cooperating. Actually deleting the data would certainly not be cooperation.

I don't think he deserves to die. Like many, I just wish someone would assassinate him. I never claimed to be a saint. — frank

Not sure that'd improve matters for those opposed to Trumpism oder the republican platform to be honest.

I think a sufficiently ruthless politician armed with the spirit of Trump might end up much more effective at getting their way than Trump will ever be.

The discord part or the political affiliation? Discord is a pretty standard messenger for gamers.