Please explain to me why the outcome of the Trump/Russia story matters
16 2018-03-22 by CelineHagbard
Outcome A: Trump is found guilty (whatever that means), and is forced out somehow, or somehow stay in power anyway. Either way, we will still be governed by a system which is corrupt to its very core. Our government will still not serve the people. The CIA and others will still be largely unaccountable to the elected government, and completely unaccountable to the people. The MIC, financial industry, tech sector, and pharma will still dominate our lives in ever-increasing ways. Victims of all types still won't have justice; we won't have justice. Or:
Outcome B: Trump is found not guilty (whatever that means). Unless you really trust Trump. I mean really trust him, not just a "better than Clinton" kind of trust, but think he's a game-changer president, then everything I wrote for Outcome A still applies. We still have a government and corporations who abuse us.
The only way the outcome of Trump/Russia matters is if you really, truly trust the government, either with or without Trump in it. There's a few people I might trust with changing things, might, but none of their names have ever been uttered in the same breath as President of the United States. I think it's absurd to trust anyone from these dens of jackals.
And if I'm right in that, then the Trump/Russia story is one of the most important phenomena in recent memory, but not because the outcome matters a lick. It's so important because it has squarely set two parts of the country into living in two different realities. People on each side are becoming so emotionally invested in that reality, that I don't think someone who believes it's true can ever recognize the reality of the person who thinks its false, and vice versa. Most of the country, and much of the world, are dividing into two reality bubbles that can't understand each other.
I think the Trump/Russia story is one of the most well executed divide-and-conquer campaigns ever undertaken. It has all the pieces: Republicans vs. Democrats, the American people vs the government, the American people vs Russia, etc. And the worst part may be, we might not even get an outcome that definitively picks Outcome A or Outcome B. It might be more or less undetermined; many people will stick to their side, and still not be able to understand the other.
It doesn't even matter who orchestrated this: Putin, CIA, DNC, "the deep state," the Bilderberger Group, the Vatican, some unknown group, or any or all of the above. Who set this in motion or perpetuated it makes no difference, and what the outcome eventually is, or appears to be, makes no difference. But,
Deciding whether you think the outcome matters, and whether or not you should give it your attention as if it matters, is important, precisely because it only has the power to divide us if we, individually and collectively, give it that power.
36 comments
1 David_St-Hubbins 2018-03-22
You can distrust the government and still be concerned about a presidential campaign colluding with a foreign government.
1 CelineHagbard 2018-03-22
Could you please explain exactly what you mean by "concerned about"?
And when you say "can," do you mean that a person is able to be concerned about it, or do you also mean that it's a good thing to be concerned about it?
1 David_St-Hubbins 2018-03-22
Sure.
Normally elections are free and fair. Colluding with a foreign country is not normal. To be concerned with it means to find some relevance in it ("this issue is of concern to me"). Concern is associated with negative feelings such as worry, anxiety and distress.
If one is "concerned about" Russian collusion it means it is of interest and some worry that Russia colluded with the Trump campaign.
I mean that an individual is able, if so inclined, to hold the two threads of "the government is inherently corrupt" and "the Trump campaign colluded with Russia" as distinct separate ideas in their head.
1 CelineHagbard 2018-03-22
I would probably debate this, at least from a philosophical perspective, and maybe on an election fraud level as well. But even if the actual process of the election is fair as it is described, it does not actually constitute a government that represents the people, but one that serves corporate and wealthy interests first.
I do not hold that the Russian collusion allegations, even if true to some of the largest claims, represent an actual departure from normal. The elections and governments are still determined by people and institutions that are not the American people, and it doesn't matter to me whether that means a Russian strongman, executives at Chase, or our own intelligence agencies.
Fair enough.
Yes, I'd agree that you can hold those both in your mind. My specific point is that if one group of people holds steadfastly that there was collusion, and another group holds steadfastly that there was not, these two groups are not going to be able to hold a shared understanding that the government is inherently corrupt.
They will understand that separately, but they will not be able communicate or organize how to address that corruption. If the Trump supporters think that Trump running the country and "draining the swamp" is the only way to solve it, and the anti-Trumpers think that removing Trump is the only way to solve it, then there can be no path forward in addressing the underlying corruption that both sides could possibly agree to. While their stated goals are the same, reducing or eliminating corruption, their plans on how to achieve that are diametrically opposed and fundamentally incompatible.
1 David_St-Hubbins 2018-03-22
I had a feeling you might but for the sake of simplicity, no one has colluded with Russia before.
Yes I would tend to agree.
I see, well to me it represents an earthquake in the democratic process.
See I would suggest two countrymen having an internal tussle involving all the commensurate corruption is still miles away from a foreign country getting involved.
This is the nature of the two part system, it is inheritly divisive. People chose their team and they then must win, there is little room for debate once people have hung their flag.
Yeah this is a problem but I don't think it is of benefit to either team red or team blue to dismiss Russian collusion as an irrelevance simply because the two party system is corrupt.
I don't know what the solution is but a depolarisation of politics is long over due. A centrist conservative party wouldn't be losing special elections to resurgent dems.
1 CelineHagbard 2018-03-22
To me, it's not two countrymen. Two countrymen implies that the conflict is among equals, but it's not among equals. A single citizen, or even often times organized individuals, do not have the same power in determining how our government functions as businesses and the wealthy. Gilens and Page study on policy preferences vs outcomes across business/wealthy/majoritarian groups [PDF].
Not really any debate here.
I agree with this, and I think that means each "pole" needs to be able to understand each other.
1 David_St-Hubbins 2018-03-22
Again, agreed!
It seems that perhaps a reformation of campaign law regarding their transparency is one step we could purse on the path to truly representative governance. Also Citizens United must be examined.
In the meantime things like gerrymandering and voter disenfranchisement are things "we" can tackle now.
Really the only disagreement we seem have is the degree of importance of the Russian interference.
1 CelineHagbard 2018-03-22
And maybe not even that, really. It's not that I don't think it's important, it's that I think it's importance is being vastly played up to the point of pushing other aspects of corruption and potential reforms out of the conversation, and reducing the chances that we can build any consensus on these reforms.
I think this country taking steps to reverse Citizens United, decrease gerrymandering, and decrease disenfranchisement would all be reforms that would have more of an impact on systemic corruption than whatever the Democrats eventually implement regarding Trump/Russia when they regain power. I think these reforms are also more widely agreed upon by voters all across the spectrum (CU at least), and could go a long way towards addressing the more deeply-seated corruption in our government.
We should tackle these reforms, and I think many Americans want to, but in the current climate, few individuals, and even fewer politicians, are willing to reach across these artificial party lines. Many (not all) people who want Trump gone are actively demonizing anyone who voted for him, or who still support him, and vice versa. It has become less a political disagreement among citizens of a common nation, but an ever-more personal hostility between members of different tribes. This did not begin in 2016, far from it, but it has been exacerbated enormously.
It's that hostility and inability to work together that I'm most concerned about. According to one version of the Trump/Russia narrative, Russia's goal was to "sow discord." Whether or not Russia was behind that, I think it's safe to say it worked. And if that was their goal, I think he have to consider whether putting our focus on Trump and Russia — two incredibly divisive issues — is going to heal that discord or heighten it. I think what's needed is an increased focus on trying to understand each other, really understand each other, and come together on at least those things where we can.
1 devils_advocaat 2018-03-22
Colluding with non-russian countries seems to be perfectly normal.
1 Beaustrodamus 2018-03-22
Tell that to Bernie Sanders
It is literally the American model of democracy. If you think otherwise, see Israel.
1 sudo-tleilaxu 2018-03-22
Bush v Gore in 2000?
1 Beaustrodamus 2018-03-22
What about it?
1 sudo-tleilaxu 2018-03-22
Just another one of the "fair elections" to add to the list.
1 Beaustrodamus 2018-03-22
I suppose. I don't think any elections have really been fair since the two party system came to dominate American politics. Such a setup breeds corruption, and forces on us elections determined by personality and public relations instead of policy and principles.
1 dreammanalishi 2018-03-22
What if the Clinton campaign was taking money from Putin through Troika Dialog and other fronts?
1 David_St-Hubbins 2018-03-22
Then the president should use his power as leader of the 3 branches of government to investigate that allegation.
1 29TiCKToCK29 2018-03-22
The President is only considered leader of the executive branch, right?
1 David_St-Hubbins 2018-03-22
Yes. I should have been clearer in that the GOP is in charge of the 3 branches.
1 29TiCKToCK29 2018-03-22
Ah ok. I don't think GOP control is equivalent to Trump being in control, but I get your point now
1 dreammanalishi 2018-03-22
What if the apparatus for that investigation WAS ALSO TAKING MONEY FROM RUSSIA?
1 David_St-Hubbins 2018-03-22
You think Mueller is being paid by Russia to investigate Russia but Russia isn't involved?
1 dreammanalishi 2018-03-22
Are you unaware of Mueller's business ties?
Are you unaware of his trip to Russia where he hand delivered uranium?
Because, if you are unaware of those things... if you are unaware of the money trail... then you are completely out of your element.... like a child who wanders into the middle of the conversation.
1 David_St-Hubbins 2018-03-22
Pretty sure the Uranium One story is dead as a Dodo.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/03/heres-why-republicans-stopped-talking-about-a-uranium-one-whistleblower/
1 dr_nuttz 2018-03-22
The Russia thing is just a big nothing burger. Maybe a White Castle slider at best.
1 CelineHagbard 2018-03-22
That may be the outcome, but is that it doesn't really matter. Would you say you trust Trump, like I described in the post?
1 ToddWhiskey 2018-03-22
Although I think it does matter WHO orchestrated it, much more important is to ask WHY an outgoing administration intentionally tried to hinder the transfer of power to a new administration (that's what the Trump/Russia thing is about).
That's why the outcome matters.
1 penguinosclub 2018-03-22
Anyone think that a potential civil war is in the works? We already have a divided populace. Just curious what other people think.
1 liverpoolwin 2018-03-22
The plan is for civil war, then the UN send in 'peacekeepers' and take control. US is the biggest obstacle to UN/Banker world government
1 CelineHagbard 2018-03-22
Possibly, though I don't expect it any time too soon. I think what would be just as profitable for those who would benefit from a hot civil war, and more likely in the short term, would be a low, steady, and perpetual "cold" civil war; a growing sense of inter-tribal hostility and animosity amongst an increasingly divided country.
1 devils_advocaat 2018-03-22
As a corollary question, if Trump disappears then do you trust Pence?
1 Babbys1stUsername 2018-03-22
This has nothing to do with Trump. The point is to create an atmosphere of instability and fear with Russia. I think we have now reached the point where nearly all democrat partisans and many republicans are ready to concent to war with Russia.
1 Git_Off_Me_Lawn 2018-03-22
The worst possible scenario. Imagine after all this investigating Mueller pulls a Comey and lists off every sketchy thing Trump did that appears to cross the line into criminality and then concludes that no prosecutor would pursue charges because Trump didn't have the requisite mens rea and he was only moderately negligent instead of grossly negligent and that's the end of it.
It would cause a full blown meltdown.
1 vivek31 2018-03-22
Nothing will come of this regardless. Every president has some sort of scandal when they're first elected.
1 Cobra-Serpentress 2018-03-22
It changes the Dynamic of the perception of our government and the way the populace and foreign governments do business with our government.