Setting aside pedantry about the US being a republic and not a pure democracy, the fact is that wealthy elites decide election outcomes now. You ended up with Trump because elites in Russia wanted him elected more than elites in the US wanted Clinton. You got rid of him because elites in the US had woken up to the fact that they weren't the only player in that game anymore.
Culture wars are a proxy battlefield in much the same way that Ukraine is.
The Russians have an advanced, complex, and deep system of influence and espionage, but they're not the only players in this game. China, Israel, the Saudis, even allies like France, all push on US politics.
Some of them, like Israel and China, push pretty hard, albeit with different goals.
Also worth noting that in many cases they're just co-opting the system set up by US powerbrokers, e.g. Tucker Carlson of Fox News talking about how great Putin is.
I should really have said "elites, including those in antagonistic countries like Russia". My main point was more about the elites than where they are from.
No, they nailed it pretty unambiguously. It was a testament to weaponizing social media. In retrospect, an amazing time in history, glad we survived it (mostly because Trump isn't really very good at anything, including treachery).
Do you believe the appeal of Trump to disaffected Americans would be enough to win him the election, if big business (Koch et al) turned against the Republican party? Genuine question, because I feel like that is where the lever really is.
Moissanite is correct. It's rarely as simple as the sound bite would have it. It's a very interesting subject, honestly, especially in the era of AI popularization. Back in the day they did that work with humans, but the ways of tracking the results would be pretty much the same either way.
I'm the OP - and it's more complicated than that. Foreign powers fermented the discord in American society (which was already there for sure, but could have been much less toxic without external influence), hence describing it as a proxy war and not a foreign-backed coup.
The presidential campaigns had a billion dollars apiece, plus more from SuperPACs. Blaming the Russians for the outcome is just evading responsibility.
Blaming foreigners for anything that is wrong in your country. I thought, you guys, considered that a conservative feat. Are you copying the conservatives you blame, are you on a morally high ground and feel you have the right to affirm anything that helps your cause, whatever it might be?
Blaming foreign influence is not the same as blaming foreigners. Foreign influence is more about pushing the most convenient angle (to them) by means of propaganda, astroturfing or information laundering.
On a similar note, you can absolutely point to America for using the international monetary system in its favor, and that wouldn't be the same a blaming regular americans.
Any effect that Russia could have possibly had has been massively and wildly exaggerated. If anything, that election showed that elites don't decide the outcomes. Clinton did appeal to a lot of 'elites' but not to many rank and file Democrat voters, large numbers of whom didn't turn up and vote. Trump, on the other hand, didn't appeal to most 'elites', but did appeal to a lot of rank and file Republican voters, who did turn up and vote. That more than explains Trump's win without having to resort to foreign boogeymen (for which the majority of the evidence never solidified beyond being just hearsay) to explain the loss of an uninspiring candidate.
> Setting aside pedantry about the US being a republic and not a pure democracy,
Actually political scientists routinely refer to the US as a democracy. You're splitting a hair that experts do not. The word "democracy" does not only mean direct democracy. Mentioning this non-issue at all is a signal, but maybe not the one you hoped for.
I actually thought of this because of a line in The West Wing where the President is making a point about representation, then went off on a googling exploration to understand a bit whether it is a meaningful distinction - most of what I read seemed to reinforce the notion that the difference is important.
In day-to-day life it certainly doesn't matter - but when you are attempting to discuss the nature of that political system itself, I don't think it is at all unreasonable to call out the distinction and decide whether to discuss it further. No need for snide jabs.
Not really, no.
Setting aside pedantry about the US being a republic and not a pure democracy, the fact is that wealthy elites decide election outcomes now. You ended up with Trump because elites in Russia wanted him elected more than elites in the US wanted Clinton. You got rid of him because elites in the US had woken up to the fact that they weren't the only player in that game anymore.
Culture wars are a proxy battlefield in much the same way that Ukraine is.