Skiluros

No real plan, submit to russian demands.

While this is true, I wouldn't discount the disastrous "escalation management" approach pursued by Biden's administration.

I understand the logic in a superficial sense, but it at least partially stems from ignorance about how russians think and how to deal with them. In a geo-political sense, they are not capable of good faith actions and they only respect brute force and strength. You would be challenged to find a single noteable example of genuine good faith actions from the russians in all of their history.

While this is true, with the US, their geopolitical ambitions have sometimes aligned with positive developments (Germany, Japan, the Baltic nations and Poland in relatively more recent times). The same cannot be said for say Russia or China.

We will almost certainly see more bad news in context of global democracy and rise authoritarianism/plutocracy. Unfortunately, it seems that the US is entering a permanent oligarch-fueled "bread and circuses" phase (Big Macs and iPhones for the modern equivalent?).

I am biased, but I wouldn't count out Ukraine just yet.

Signing off on russians demands in not a plan.

Why do you think they are being fooled? If anything I think one of the appeal of Trump is the fact that he owns his corruption and shadiness.

That's not necessarily true. Russia holds elections as well, doesn't mean they are free and fair.

It's pretty naive to think that the US cannot become a de facto non-democratic state.

Historically that's not necessarily the case. Authoritarians who come to power via somewhat democratic means in their first terms to be much more mild relative to subsequent terms where they solidify their hold on institutions.

One notable example would be Putin's first term (which is largely seen to be a fair win) or even when Medvedev was ordered to warm the seat. It always only gets worse, at least from historical examples.

The bigger question is whether the US opposition has any willingness to fight, which I don't believe to be the case.

I think your confidence in this is exactly why it can happen.

This is not some sort of secret knowledge, the topic of democracies sliding into de facto authoritarianism is a well researched topic.

And the mode by which this happens is often slow and steady, largely driven by complacency and corruption.

Ukrainian here, most the of the country and the government thought Trump would win. Some of this could be attributed to just more brand recognition (no one knows much about Harris), but I think people generally felt that Trump was more in line with US society.

FWIW, we've been fighting russian domination for centuries, so in a sense this is just another chapter. No other option than to do what we can.

If you're serious about this. You don't need a degree. You would need some sort of financial buffer for the transition.

You can teach english or maybe even find a mid-level job (by local standards) leveraging your english skills in globalized areas like outsourcing (experience with sales or some sort of client facing would help).

I would not go through with this unless you're actually committed (perhaps even beyond Trump; looking for something novel in life). You'll need to learn the local language if you are serious about this.

Trump winning the popular vote would be hilarious.

Btw, I am not being petty. I am Ukrainian so we got a lot at stake. But that being said most Ukrainians (and the government) thought Trump would win.

Exactly. It's like the (apocryphal?) quote.

There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen.

Why do you think there would a formal revocation of free speech if US did slide into authoritarian, non-democratic rule? This seems counter inuitive. Why bring attention to such a topic if your goal is limiting free speech, surely you would use other more subtle methods to achieve such a goal (again this topic is well researched and you can easily find out how it works if you are actually acting in good faith). Russia (and I believe even China) formally has free speech.

And what makes you think people in the US would oppose trump jailing political opponents (or let alone have the capability do anything about it)? No one is going to openly say that person X is going to jail because he opposes Trump/his backers. You would find some other reason that is easy to market to local plebs? No?

Am I being unreasonable in my line of thinking?

I am Ukrainian. So let's just say you won't convince me of the uncle Stalin coming to liberate eastern Europe BS narrative. I would like to invite you and your family to try and speak Ukrainian in the occupied territories.

A strong majority of russian are genocidal imperialists. Not because of any inherent qualities, it's the choices they make.

I will just add that the russians should take ownership of the outcomes in their history (not just 1996 election, but more generally). They are not children and they need to take responsibility without looking for scapegoats as they always do.

I believe I was pretty clear when I said I am Ukrainian (living in Ukraine).

Why in god's name do you think I would buy into your white-washing of russian genocidal chauvinism?

What's the logic here?

Bread and circuses. Or Big Macs and iPhones if you want the modern equivalent.

It is real though.

You can't expect a society dominated by oligarchs (not just on an economic and political level, but more importantly the broader social conscious) to put up any effective challenge to an oligarch candidate.

The lack of "on the ground" protest activities when that US abortion protection law was repealed is a perfect example.

Doesn't help that the US opposition is largely corrupt as well.

I guess counting of the votes was.

The 2000 and 2004 elections in russia are generally considered free and fair (2004 perhaps less so, but I digress). That didn't really have an impact later on.

But the system is sufficiently rigged already, Russians just don’t bother with such complex mechanisms. Why, when you can just steal. After all, a different kind of people.

While I agree in general, having lived in North America for a decade (including US) and russia for over a decade, you'd be surprised about the similarities in certain (emphasis on certain, not even close to all or even many) elements of "national thinking" in the US and russia. That being said, historically US has had a positive impact in the world. I can't think of a single thing that russia has done that has had a positive effect (even their much fetishized celebration of WW2 victory is a ruse as the USSR initially sided with the Nazis to split up Europe).

Exactly u would be way morw subtle like pressuring all the social media sites where a majority of conversation takes place to remove certain information.

I am not really sure how this relates to what we were discussing. Let's add say leftists, Biden, Harris, anyone you want, to the list of authoritarians and oppose free speech. Let's just close this piece for a second.

Why would you assume that limitations on free speech would be done via a formal, well publicized revocation of a constitution article (from my experience living in the US, polemics around constitution are extremely common when compared to other countries)? Surely if that was your goal, you would use methods that provide a veneer of deniability and you would use roundabout methods (de facto instead of de jure). So how would you even come to the conclusion that free speech is being limited if it is clear that this would be done with the explicit goal of trying to convince people that free speech is not being trampled on?

What do u think trumps felonies are? Attempts to jail a political opponent? Righfully earned for hiding the fact he paid of a hooker? Didnt Arnold Schwarzenegger do the same thing?

OK, same thing. Let's just say Trump is innocent of any and all issues, it's all his political opponents.

Why do you think the prosecution of opponents by a regime would be done in the open and in a manner that would make it clear that this is happening? What benefit would the side implementing such initiatives have from doing this in the open, in a way that can be easily noted by the general public? Do you not agree that in the early stages of transition to an autocratic, non-democratic regime it makes more sense to use alternative methods that can convince your own supporters that you are doing the right thing? If it makes it easier, let's even forget Trump. Just base discussion that can apply to a country's political sphere (be it in the US or otherwise).

Not at all u just need to make the final connection

What connection am I supposed to make. Even if I agree with your arguments regarding prosecution of Trump and leftists limiting free speech, I don't see what this to with points I am bringing (which I tried to present in a more generic manner).

You can think Americans are inherently immune to the points I raised. Fine, I obviously disagree (I lived in the US and many other countries, so it would not be possible for me to agree to such a claim), but then you should be explicit about this. State it clearly, if that's what you believe.

Good stuff! Canada is a great place to live. Montreal is my favourite city in North America (unfortunately have only been to one city in Mexico).

Do it. I've been traveling around my whole. It's a strange, but rewarding experience.

Good luck to you man!

Not an American, so maybe I don't know what I am talking about (although I have lived/worked/studied in US + Canada for a decade).

I won't speculate on who will win or not. But as a foreigner who has lived in the US, the impression I get is that American society is arguably not prepared to fight for it's freedoms. There also don't seem to be any institutions (political, social, cultural) that can create a situation where the current elite's de facto hold on power becomes unsustainable and they start feeling a personal risk (even on an implicit level - which is arguably more important than explicit actions).

Paradoxically that can be seen as a good thing; there is enough money to go around where people don't need to care. That's actually a decent place to be in (in an abstract sense). But there are also externalities to such a setup; your country's liberal (not in the American sense) institutions can slowly circle the drain and no one does anything until it's too late.

In a hypothetical country a sizeable ethnic minority might be so opposed to a given leader, that a lot of the centrists or people who just don't care that much start having second thoughts about that leader. Or say the local oligarchs or the judicial elite start wondering if they could get themselves in trouble (real trouble; loss of assets, even personal danger - doesn't have to be explicit but even a somewhat real possibility) due to the continued support of said leader.

From my experience, these sort of dynamics simply do not exist in the US. The oligarchs will always have their money protected and their "get out of jail free" cards respected. The judicial system as a whole would never be in a situation where they would largely be considered illegitimate (and seen as treasonous, criminal collaborators).

And can you honestly imagine any kind of real protest movement in the US. Shutting down of airports and critical transport and communication networks. Direct rejection of central authority in specific regions. Local arrests of oligarch property. Orders for arrests of specific oligarchs in protest regions (with full support of rank and file police officers).

I am not saying this is good thing, just pointing out that I can't imagine this happening in the US (I could be wrong).

So let's say Harris does win and Trump does a low-key coup with backing from oligarch and judicial elites (the US supreme court is corrupt by global standards). I don't see anyone fighting back.

Am I being too pessimistic and jaded in my worldview?

Cops in general? Absolutely not. You won't change my mind on this. I have real life examples from my country that for me make it impossible to say "all cops are bad" - very couregeous acts of bravery in defense of the country and in a sense me and my family too.

With respect to the US, I did have issues with the police acting out and roleplaying as cowboys and generally being a bit unprofessional (I am aware that it can be far worse for many other Americans). I also had good personal interactions with someone who worked in a US police department. It would be difficult for me to call him a bad person.

I am sure there are a lot of bad cops in the US (and my country too), but I got the impression that systematic/institutional issues should not be underestimated.

These are just my direct experiences and some general knowledge. I am not really in a position to make calls about the US.

Do you have something specific in mind?

If you don't mind me asking, why did you ask me that question. I am genuinely curious.

I feel like I am not getting something.

I generally oppose notions such as "all cops are bad" and I do think they should even command some respect in society (it should go both ways of course). You want the police to be on side of society in a broad sense and for them to be civic minded.

I wouldn't say American police are bad (even though I do have stories of their cowboy antics) per se, but I did get the impression that the US police is somewhat subrevient to the oligarchy.

Having a civic minded police is the best option, but even a self-interested police force can show flexibility and have a indirectly positive influence.

One hypothetical example would be the police not willing to easily, directly side a group in a given case. Their thinking could be something along the lines "why don't we sit this out, no point in taking all the risks for some breadcrumbs, when the vast majority of the benefits go to someone else. Let them put their asses on the line and we'll see how things play out."