Foreign Interference in US Elections

[US-SSR]

The ruling party of Nation X, facing almost certain defeat in the national elections coming in less than 40 days, reacts badly. Its leaders disaparage the fairness of the vote; encourage their supporters to break election laws and intimidate their opponents; initiate dubious lawsuits and mobilize the instrumentalities of the state to suppress the opposition's votes; threaten legal action against the opposition and its leaders; move to influence the supreme court to render any decision in its favor; spread fear, intimidation and lies; attack peaceful protesters with tear gas, rubber bullets and military helicopters; threaten to call out the military to suppress opposition; declare any election result favoring the opposition will be fraudulent; and refuse to commit to recognizing the results of the election in case of a loss.

At this point in many Nation Xs we would expect at the least a strong representation from the US Ambassador about the importance of free and fair elections that are monitored for regularity with results that are transparent and accepted by all parties. In some cases the US has gone farther, making economic and in some cases military threats, enlisting international organizations, etc. Some have held this to be interference in other nations' elections.

Now that Nation X is the good old USA and the shoe is on the other foot, what should be the response of foreign Ambassadors, Heads of State and/or governments? How many days before the election would be the best time for such a response? What would the red line be for other nations to begin to treat the US as the US has treated them in the past?

It's past time for US allies and adversaries to take public issue with the Republcan Party's 2020 shenanigans. I'm going with hamberders with The Hoff for the moment but could be persuaded otherwise, say toward an international election observation mission.

[US-SSR]

Update: COVID concerns limit planned electoral observer missions to US; State Department delays invitation to OAS

[Loben III]

we interfered in how many elections in foreign countries yet somehow it happens to us its a massive tragedy.

[Major-Tom]

we interfered in how many elections in foreign countries yet somehow it happens to us its a massive tragedy.

We still do, routinely.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't discourage it domestically while trying to make sure we don't do the same abroad (wishful thinking on both fronts, but hey).

[Sanghyeok]

I never reject afternoon tea-time diplomacy

[US-SSR]

we interfered in how many elections in foreign countries yet somehow it happens to us its a massive tragedy.

The question isn't whether strong nations interfere in other nations' affairs. They do. As the Athenians told the Melians in the 4th Century BCE, the strong do as they can and the weak suffer as they must. The question is: is the US to be strong? Or is it to be weak? Strong nations take actions when others interfere in their affairs. Weak nations -- and weak parties within weak nations -- pretend it never happened.

[Loben III]

we interfered in how many elections in foreign countries yet somehow it happens to us its a massive tragedy.

The question isn't whether strong nations interfere in other nations' affairs. They do. As the Athenians told the Melians in the 4th Century BCE, the strong do as they can and the weak suffer as they must. The question is: is the US to be strong? Or is it to be weak? Strong nations take actions when others interfere in their affairs. Weak nations -- and weak parties within weak nations -- pretend it never happened.

Im sure those ass clowns at langley can do mental gymnastics all day about the suffering they incurred.

[Purpelia]

The question isn't whether strong nations interfere in other nations' affairs. They do. As the Athenians told the Melians in the 4th Century BCE, the strong do as they can and the weak suffer as they must. The question is: is the US to be strong? Or is it to be weak? Strong nations take actions when others interfere in their affairs. Weak nations -- and weak parties within weak nations -- pretend it never happened.

Im sure those ass clowns at langley can do mental gymnastics all day about the suffering they incurred.

They don't have to because they just don't care. America is the evil empire of our time and the folks leading it are all power hungry evil sociopaths. You just don't get to reach that level of power without being one. It simply takes too much backstabbery, sucking up, threatening and general spinelessness and calculated evil for any sane man to get through it and remain sane. Thus only evil wins.

[Chestaan]

we interfered in how many elections in foreign countries yet somehow it happens to us its a massive tragedy.

The question isn't whether strong nations interfere in other nations' affairs. They do. As the Athenians told the Melians in the 4th Century BCE, the strong do as they can and the weak suffer as they must. The question is: is the US to be strong? Or is it to be weak? Strong nations take actions when others interfere in their affairs. Weak nations -- and weak parties within weak nations -- pretend it never happened.

If that's the question then I would much prefer a weak US to a strong one.

[Purpelia]

The question isn't whether strong nations interfere in other nations' affairs. They do. As the Athenians told the Melians in the 4th Century BCE, the strong do as they can and the weak suffer as they must. The question is: is the US to be strong? Or is it to be weak? Strong nations take actions when others interfere in their affairs. Weak nations -- and weak parties within weak nations -- pretend it never happened.

If that's the question then I would much prefer a weak US to a strong one.

The down side of acting like that is that you make a lot of enemies who are all too happy to wait for you to falter and use the same logic on you.

[Picairn]

If that's the question then I would much prefer a weak US to a strong one.

I prefer superpowers like the US and China to lose their power entirely. But that will only lead to the rise of new superpowers, and the cycle repeats.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

The ruling party of Nation X, facing almost certain defeat in the national elections coming in less than 40 days, reacts badly. Its leaders disaparage the fairness of the vote; encourage their supporters to break election laws and intimidate their opponents; initiate dubious lawsuits and mobilize the instrumentalities of the state to suppress the opposition's votes; threaten legal action against the opposition and its leaders; move to influence the supreme court to render any decision in its favor; spread fear, intimidation and lies; attack peaceful protesters with tear gas, rubber bullets and military helicopters; threaten to call out the military to suppress opposition; declare any election result favoring the opposition will be fraudulent; and refuse to commit to recognizing the results of the election in case of a loss.

At this point in many Nation Xs we would expect at the least a strong representation from the US Ambassador about the importance of free and fair elections that are monitored for regularity with results that are transparent and accepted by all parties. In some cases the US has gone farther, making economic and in some cases military threats, enlisting international organizations, etc. Some have held this to be interference in other nations' elections.

Now that Nation X is the good old USA and the shoe is on the other foot, what should be the response of foreign Ambassadors, Heads of State and/or governments? How many days before the election would be the best time for such a response? What would the red line be for other nations to begin to treat the US as the US has treated them in the past?

It's past time for US allies and adversaries to take public issue with the Republcan Party's 2020 shenanigans. I'm going with hamberders with The Hoff for the moment but could be persuaded otherwise, say toward an international election observation mission.

You have 61 thousand Australians already.

Don't chuck a spaz, America.
It's not our fault if you attract immigrants like (pardon the expression) flies on shit.

Rupert Murdoch, nope.
James Murdoch, nope.
Bindi Irwin, just stop already. We're not sending you our best, get over it, and no you can't send any back.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

If that's the question then I would much prefer a weak US to a strong one.

I prefer superpowers like the US and China to lose their power entirely. But that will only lead to the rise of new superpowers, and the cycle repeats.

How much power should the most powerful 2 nations have, then?

Imo, it must be just enough to create a 'fragile 2 party system', in which smaller and humbler powers hold the balance-of-power. "Keeping the bastards honest" but never dreaming of empires to call their own.

3-way is less stable: US, China, EU.
4-way isn't even predictable

[Sanghyeok]

I think EU-China-US three superpower parity with a strong Russia and UK is a good solution, personally.

[Celestial Provinces]

I think EU-China-US three superpower parity with a strong Russia and UK is a good solution, personally.

What if we add India?

[Sanghyeok]

I think EU-China-US three superpower parity with a strong Russia and UK is a good solution, personally.

What if we add India?

I'm not opposed to that.

[Torisakia]

A full scale Nerf gun war seems like the best solution.

[Sanghyeok]

A full scale Nerf gun war seems like the best solution.

Water guns are superior.

[US-SSR]

If that's the question then I would much prefer a weak US to a strong one.

The down side of acting like that is that you make a lot of enemies who are all too happy to wait for you to falter and use the same logic on you.

A state that achieves a position of strength -- or stumbles into one as did the US after WW2, the UK after the Council of Vienna, Athens after the Greek Dark Ages, etc., etc. -- inevitably acquires wide-ranging interests that involve other states, the maintenance of which demand a certain level of influence and/or interference in those other states' affairs. One of the lessons of history is that no such state remains at the top of the greasy pole forever. How much longer the US will last there is an open question; but there can be no doubt that four more years of a Trump presidency will hasten its inevitable end, while rejecting Trump will extend the US's time as a global superpower for good or ill.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

we interfered in how many elections in foreign countries yet somehow it happens to us its a massive tragedy.

It's a big deal in those countries. Just as it is in the US.

Loben makes light of it because so far it's mainly been Russia interfering in favor of Loben's side.
If interference in 2016 had mainly been for Clinton, then she had won, Loben would be screaming Treason.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I think EU-China-US three superpower parity with a strong Russia and UK is a good solution, personally.

I suggested something like that yesterday, but since then I've had doubts. Three seems prone to instability (ganging up) which is fine for trade: the two who favor trade with each other most, define the new world trade regime which others then seek to join. But militarily it's very bad. Two military superpowers, plus others able to defend themselves (ie hurt a superpower badly enough to prevent being invaded, still having to accept interference) worked OK in the Cold War. I'd stick with that.

Leveraging trade with military influence is of course ancient. But maybe with enough international trade the trade benefits to be gained by threatening or 'protecting' other nations would be marginal, and WTO sanctions would be enough to stop it.

[Nilokeras]

How much longer the US will last there is an open question; but there can be no doubt that four more years of a Trump presidency will hasten its inevitable end, while rejecting Trump will extend the US's time as a global superpower for good or ill.

I think one thing a hypothetical Biden presidency will have to tackle is just how much that ship has already sailed, and how much there is no turning back or extending it. Foreign policy maneuvers take time to execute, and just because the 'adults' are back in charge for another all-too-brief window doesn't mean that places are going to scrap their decisions to re-evaluate their relationship with the US.

[Willtime]

I think EU-China-US three superpower parity with a strong Russia and UK is a good solution, personally.

I suggested something like that yesterday, but since then I've had doubts. Three seems prone to instability (ganging up) which is fine for trade: the two who favor trade with each other most, define the new world trade regime which others then seek to join. But militarily it's very bad. Two military superpowers, plus others able to defend themselves (ie hurt a superpower badly enough to prevent being invaded, still having to accept interference) worked OK in the Cold War. I'd stick with that.

Leveraging trade with military influence is of course ancient. But maybe with enough international trade the trade benefits to be gained by threatening or 'protecting' other nations would be marginal, and WTO sanctions would be enough to stop it.

Really hard.

Is the EU united enough now?
I hope so,but what really counts is the truth.

China is not the best choose to become a pivot,because ……many reasons.
I think the misunderstanding between China and others is the worst reason.
No,not only others dont know China enough,but China also dont know others enough.
And China's bad reputation (this time I wont talk about if the reputation is right or not,but it exists)

US……ok,although only seventy years have passed, the US has become accustomed to its number one position in the world.
And US will try everything to keep this position.US will try its best to STOP any country who want to surpass US.

Russia,the same reasons of China.

UK,is UK still powerful now?

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I suggested something like that yesterday, but since then I've had doubts. Three seems prone to instability (ganging up) which is fine for trade: the two who favor trade with each other most, define the new world trade regime which others then seek to join. But militarily it's very bad. Two military superpowers, plus others able to defend themselves (ie hurt a superpower badly enough to prevent being invaded, still having to accept interference) worked OK in the Cold War. I'd stick with that.

Leveraging trade with military influence is of course ancient. But maybe with enough international trade the trade benefits to be gained by threatening or 'protecting' other nations would be marginal, and WTO sanctions would be enough to stop it.

Really hard.

Is the EU united enough now?
I hope so,but what really counts is the truth.

My take is that admitting the Eastern European members has put a cultural lag on the EU, slowing down the process of empowering the European Parliament. Without a strong government for the Federation it would be either futile or dangerous to begin building an All of Europe military.

Not much is going to happen for a decade or so. But cultural integration, and internal migration, can't be hurried. Or maybe they try it, and the East leaves again. That would be a shame in my opinion.

China is not the best choose to become a pivot,because ……many reasons.
I think the misunderstanding between China and others is the worst reason.
No,not only others dont know China enough,but China also dont know others enough.
And China's bad reputation (this time I wont talk about if the reputation is right or not,but it exists)

US……ok,although only seventy years have passed, the US has become accustomed to its number one position in the world.
And US will try everything to keep this position.US will try its best to STOP any country who want to surpass US.

Russia,the same reasons of China.

UK,is UK still powerful now?

The idea of a Commonwealth federation, with or without India, sometimes gets suggested. Without that though, it's only nuclear weapons that keep the UK relevant.

[Sanghyeok]

Commonwealth is Empire 2.0, and not even Britons want that.