I hope you’re both correct about Biden doing well in his encounter with Putin. Don’t forget that the mere fact of Biden’s holding a face-to-face meeting with Putin is a triumph for Putin, propaganda-wise. It gives Putin support for a claim that Russia is on a par with the USA, even though it simply is not (other than in being a nuclear power).
LSLGuy, you made some unjustifiable leaps of logic in your reply. For one thing, my cite was clearly not in support of my contention that Biden is likely to do poorly, on balance, out of this meeting—on the contrary, my cite was a concession that Biden had, in the past, failed to make George W. Bush’s mistake about Putin (making your mention of that mistake superfluous in the context).
My theory that the meeting will be a net win for Putin and a net loss for the USA is based on observations such as these made by chess champion and political activist Garry Kasparov:
Putin is good at shaping headlines; I wouldn’t bet against the likelihood that he succeeds in making the top story each day about his projection-accusation that Biden is ‘persecuting the noble January 6 Capitol patriots.’
I don’t know that Biden will be able to counteract that. I hope he will, but I’m skeptical.
Ideally, Biden’s people would have supplied him with pithy attacks highlighting Putin’s murderous recent history that would displace in the headlines the ‘BIDEN is the real human rights abuser’ stuff that Putin will be shilling.
Even more ideally, when push comes to shove, Biden will refuse to let any photos of the encounter be taken at all—denying Putin the propaganda win within Russia (his ‘Russia is on a par with the USA’ spin).
Yes. Some Republicans may have found inspirational recent electoral developments in Samoa:
That’s a New Zealand source:
The lesson Republicans may find intriguing: if you don’t like election results, simply lock the winner(s) out of the statehouse (or county courthouse or what have you).
Maddow covered this story:
The result is still in dispute—so if the “locking out” tactic hasn’t been a total success, it hasn’t been a failure, either.
The problem with thinking that our system is safe because the law protects us is that the law is ultimately a tool for the government to use to impose norms and values on a society. We didn’t have the most robust democratic system pre-Trump but we at least had a consensus about running elections in an objective way.
If enough of the government gets taken over by people who value Trumpian authoritarianism over democracy, the law will stop mattering. Russia technically has laws preventing corruption and upholding fair elections, but if an official actually chose to follow a fair process over protecting Putin’s grip on the country, that official would not be protected by the law whereas any Putin loyalist will always be protected regardless of the law. Any time Putin can use existing law to maintain his grip on the country, he uses it. Any time the law contradicts what he wants to do, he finds an extralegal means to get around it, and there will never be any way for the actual law to be upheld. Any time there is no way around an inconvenient law, the nominal legislature will be forced to change the law. We’re pretty far away from that reality, but we’ve already moved significantly in that direction.
They’re not going to just change vote outcomes; they’re going to put people in power who can refuse to certify elections. So then it goes to the courts. And then it turns into a screaming match about who really won…which is the entire point. Republicans are done trying to win elections fairly and squarely; they want people to doubt the entire process of democratic elections.
I agree with this, and I think it connects to an underrated consequence of the 2020 election: If you’re a Republican and you want to throw a wrench in some democratic process (counting the votes, certifying results etc.) you basically get a free shot. The worst that can happen is that the courts and the rest of the political system stop you and everyone else presses on without you. No one is getting prosecuted for trying to prevent a smooth election and certification process. As long as you aren’t literally leading an armed mob into congress you can take your shot at overturning election results, and you either actually succeed or you walk away with no consequences while building up more support to do it next time.
An interesting development came about yesterday where New Mexico Republicans blamed low GOP turnout in this week’s special House election on “lack of confidence in the integrity of election systems.”
Stir up distrust and then watch your support melt away in discouragement. The irony would be amusing if the end game wasn’t to leapfrog elections altogether.
Michael Flynn’s brother, who helped to make sure that the National Guard wasn’t called up to stop the insurrection, took over as commander of all Army Forces in the Pacific today.
I found this development disturbing, despite the reports you mention (that Charles hasn’t explicitly endorsed coups).
Retired General Russel L. Honore seems to feel alarmed about the American armed forces, and what substantial numbers of the forces may be up to; his tweet today:
He made several tweets on this topic, today.
Let’s hope Flynn’s brother truly is NOT “coup-friendly.”
Missiles, too. But the planes are probably more relevant to any military coup. Someone would have to take over all the bases in the Western states, as well as those in the Pacific.
You use planes to transport pro-coup military personnel from where you are (hypothetically, at Ft. Shafter, Hawaii, headquarters of US Army Pacific), to those bases commanded by officers you suspect may be unsympathetic to a coup.
And once transported, those personnel do…whatever they need to do.