Skiluros

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 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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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

Agreed. My comment was a general statement of solidarity. :)

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.

Curious to see how this goes. Wish all the best to the democratic, liberal-minded folks in Hungary.

The impression I get is Orban's rule has become ironclad over the last few decades (which makes sense as you get time to institutionalize "permanent" rule and condition society to such a state of affairs). I do hope I am wrong and my knowledge of Hungarian politics is subpar beyond foreign policy elements.