(10-15-2017 11:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: (10-15-2017 11:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: (10-15-2017 10:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: I can believe the Russians just wanted to cause chaos. i can believe Putin hated Hillary. None of which shows collusion in the slightest. I believe the Facebook ads show they went both ways.
Interesting (and somewhat terrifying) game-theory case here:
If the "Resistance" is correct and Putin *wanted* Trump to win and the Trump campaign in fact colluded, then it is somewhat of a marginal 'victory' for the Resistance, an enormous loss for Trump, and a huge win for Putin.
If Putin rather just wished to 'create confusion and chaos' and there was no 'collusion', the continued chant and push of the "Resistance" has been an enormous time and force multiplier for Putin's goals. In short, in this case the "Resistance" would be an enormous dupe in Putin's favor. In short, if there was no collusion, the continued "Resistance" message would essentially be an enormous ongoing political Viagra for Putin overall.
Given that loss/reward ratio, does one think that the "Resistance" will ever tone down the message for collusion? Seems to me the "Resistance" will be forced to play this card to the absolute Berlin-bunker bitter end, since if not true they have been an absolutely enormous stooge player that has massively increased Putin's original goals. The scorecard would read as the "Resistance" having an utterly enormous loss, Trump a solid win, and Putin a stupendously enormous win.
Terrible three player hand in all cases for the United States as a whole. Utterly devastating loss for the United States in the case that the "Resistance" version is one that is 'concocted to cover up the reasons for a loss'.
This endgame situation (for both cases) is like the layman's translation of the laws of thermodynamics: 1) you can't win; 2) you can't break even; and 3) you can't get out of the game.
My hope is that, whatever the outcome of Mueller's investigation is, that everyone on all sides accepts it as fact and moves on. So if that means they find 0 evidence of collusion, the "Resistance" moves on.
If that means they find ample evidence of collusion, the anti-"Resistance" accepts that and whatever charges come with that, and moves on.
That will be key - accepting the results of the investigation are crucial.
I would go further. The losing side must accept responsibility. That is why this will continue to be a long thorn in US politics, as I doubt much of anybody will gracefully accept the results, let alone assume responsibility.
Case 1: Trump "colluded" -- I agree Trump should be removed from office with this. But many on this partisan hack's side will still view it as an effective coup, and the antagonism will remain. Especially with the vitriol reserved for both their viewpoints and support of Trump by the other side during the campaign and through the administration.
Case 2: Underlings have problems -- marginally better result than above. Easier on continuation issues with underlings headed to the pokey as opposed to the removal of a head of state. Not as satisfying for the perpetual PTDS-types as that removal, but they might be somewhat assuaged at the outcome. I dont see this group as being anywhere near satisfied as anything short of a political ethnic cleansing of anything Trump though.
Case 3: Nothing wrong -- Trumpsters will still have the giant chip on their shoulder of the type that made them vote for Trump in the first place ---- i.e. the sick and tired of being perpetually labeled as ignorant **** menschen people. But that chip will be enhanced by the discreditation of the "Resistance" story line. And, do you really think that the "Resistance" will retool and own up for the giant **** up that this branch represents?
Overall I am very pessimistic on the outcomes. If Trumpsters cannot accept and vocalize responsibility in the first branch, of if Resistancers cannot accept and vocalize responsibility for the 3rd branch, then those respective sides will be labeled as the most destructive and venal examples of American politics for generations. To be blunt, I doubt seriously either has the ability (or want) to accept or vocalize responsibility.
Quote:Your description of the scenarios above is why I believe the intelligence communities assessment that Russia attempted to interfere with the election using various methods (Wikileaks, fake social media accounts, etc). They pretty much had a win-win situation when they found that the Republican candidate's campaign was willing to meet with Russian operatives about dirt. Had they had an unwilling candidate who perhaps immediately went to the press about the contact and didn't try to lie about and obscure meetings with Russian officials, the potential beneficial outcomes for Russia start decreasing.
I don't think there is any doubt amongst most people that Russia attempted to interfere/influence the election.
The disagreement creeps in when describing the interference as collusion with a campaign.
As an aside, and with due respect, this is *not* the first time that foreign nationals/governments offered information to sway an election in the United States. Nor is it a first time that campaigns have sought such information/aid. One would have to be utterly and completely naive to think this election is a first time occurrence in either direction.
Quote:But they've thrown enough red meat to the left that it has caused an us vs. them situation between the left and right.
Better than that. They have thrown enough meat into the pen to ensure that only one pit bull will be left standing. Either Trump falls, or the Resistance is entirely an utter stooge/dupe and completely discredited. These outcomes do not lend themselves to any accommodation in standing down from their respective positions. And both sides are incredible in their stupidity in heading down this path in this manner.
In litigation, the worst litigation is one where the opposing side is offering no way to compromise. It ensures a no prisoners type tenacity.
The same holds for any conflict, as it ensures horrendously bloody warfare. There was a reason why the Eastern front in WW2 was as bloody as it was -- they were two adversaries bent on mutual destruction with no ability for accommodation. The same holds for the Japanese/Chinese/US/British portion of the same war.
I am thinking we are in the midst of that same type of conflict here between the "Resistance" and the Trump backers, unfortunately.