America learned a bloody and horrible lesson trying to install a friendly government in Afghanistan after Russia diminished their influence in the region.

The people of the US are the primary target of Russia. Their government is actively trying to do us harm.

It is indifference versus malice. This isn't a defense of US foreign policy. We have a history of doing awful things. It is simply recognizing differences between the two countries approaches and noting that the fears that initially sparked this tangent match up nearly perfectly with Russia's goals and actions.

And why do you think this supposed intent matters so much? Do you think outcomes will be worse for the people of the US than living under Pinochet or in modern-day Fallujah? Or do you think polarization and misinformation are not the least of the strategies the US uses in its foreign interventions?

I’m legitimately confused by your viewpoint.

I have explained my viewpoint numerous times. I don't think I need to explain it any more. I am legitimately confused on what you are trying to achieve by repeatedly questioning that viewpoint. I already admitted the US does bad things. I am not making a value judgement of US versus Russia. I am stating that the specific situation outlined matches closer to Russia's behavior than the US's.

[1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/25/us/politics/trump-militar...

And I fail to see how the US fits into the category of manslaughter anyway. For instance, there has been plenty of strong and well-documented anti-communist malice at the highest levels of power in US government and intelligence. But even so, imperialist histories like to portray this country as somehow stumbling into the atrocities it has committed.

How so?

The elections are happening, legislature legislates, judicial system is adjudicating, the military is following the constitution. What are the signs of the collapse?

The sole link you provided has nothing to do with a coup - it talks about Trump potentially deploying military to quell riots. It is his constitutional right to do, however the generals are of course free to resign from this. Is this a coup on your book?

The signs? The words of the president and the people around him. The article I linked is one example in which people are having to seriously consider dangerous situations that were thought impossible during all recent presidential elections.

The edge of collapse also doesn't mean it has collapsed yet. I wouldn't even say it is a likelihood that it will collapse, but there is some non-trivial chance that the US democracy fails between now and the end of the year. It has been at least decades since anyone would have said something like that previous sentence. The cold war might have been the last time in which there was this high of a chance of catastrophe.

>The sole link you provided has nothing to do with a coup - it talks about Trump potentially deploying military to quell riots. It is his constitutional right to do, however the generals are of course free to resign from this. Is this a coup on your book?

It is talking about Trump potentially deploying military in either the lead up to the election, on election day, or in the wake of election day. This can be done for any number of reasons. It can be done to rile up his base like he did with his photo-op at St John's. It can be done to intimidate people away from voting. I can be done in the wake of the election to challenge it's legitimacy or to quell protests and civil unrest in response to him challenging the election's legitimacy. The first example is clearly not a coup. The second probably doesn't qualify either even though it would be illegal. The third one is using military violence or the threat of it to illegally seize power from rightful leaders. Isn't that a text book definition of a coup?

Yes, also completely made up.

Trump talks a lot, often times incoherently and faster than he thinks. This is not the greatest quality in a president, but also not the worst.

This is only "completely made up" in the sense that every hypothetical the military prepares for is a made up scenario.

Trump is within his authority to send the troops into the streets to quell an insurrection against constitutional order. This being an unusual situation naturally the generals should be getting prepared. Where's the coup?

Which behavior is that?

>he refuses to concede

This is not supported by the NYT quote re Pentagon officials you have provided. Do you have a quote where Pentagon officials discuss actions in case of Trump's failure to concede?

"Collapse of democracy" doesn't impute lawlessness. The attempt to cripple the USPS under DeJoy was legal, for example. If the US continues its slide into authoritarianism, you can bet it will happen with the pretense of legality.

But that aside, Trump has indicated that he won't honor the election result [1]. GP's link mentions that as well, and links to the article:

> “Get rid of the ballots and you’ll have a very peaceful — there won’t be a transfer, frankly. There will be a continuation,” the president said.

There are also many scenarios in which the election result leads us into Constitutionally uncharted territory. The Atlantic painted some plausible pictures recently [2], including a quote from a Trump campaign legal advisor about appointing electors that don't match a state's popular vote result:

> According to sources in the Republican Party at the state and national levels, the Trump campaign is discussing contingency plans to bypass election results and appoint loyal electors in battleground states where Republicans hold the legislative majority. With a justification based on claims of rampant fraud, Trump would ask state legislators to set aside the popular vote and exercise their power to choose a slate of electors directly.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/23/us/politics/trump-power-t...

[2] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/11/what-if...

And how is this going to happen? The Constitution puts firm limits on the President's power, the Supreme court will not approve of anything contrary to that (no matter who appointed the justices), and the Congress is not going to change the constitution by a vote of 2/3rd. What is the mechanism of usurping power that you see?

Trump has spent the last four years flagrantly breaking the law and suffered no real consequences. It strains credulity that he wouldn’t accelerate this with another four years and a solid Supreme Court majority.

He already had four years. What exactly did he dismantle? The courts, the congress, the senate, the elections, the state rights? Did anything change at all in the "political infrastructure"?

> courts that Trump and McConnell have spent the past four years packing only rule against the most flagrant of Constitutional violations

This trope is getting old. Justices are not puppets of their presidents. Sometime a conservative appointee turns out liberal and serves out their term long after the president is gone and forgotten. The terms "conservative" and "liberal" apply to justices only very loosely. I invite you to read opinions of, say, Justice Scalia [1] - he's not the freedom-crusher you imagine them to be.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas#Scalia's_dis...

He and the Senate have aggressively confirmed judges at all levels. He’s purged all but the most obsequious members of the executive branch. He started to gut the USPS and will continue after the election. He’s attempted in multiple ways to undermine the census, specifically to undercount minority residents. He’s sown misinformation about voting. He’s encouraged police and private citizens to intimidate voters at the polls. While not his own doing, he will take advantage of the 1982 consent decree that expired in 2018.

> This trope is getting old. Justices are not puppets of their presidents.

I never said they were “puppets”. But they’re obviously biased — otherwise, why would Mitch McConnell try to block so many of Obama’s nominees and confirm so many of Trump’s? A case in which the conservative bloc of the court voted to uphold a law prohibiting gay sex in a private residence does not support your assertion.

True, but Justices are extremely consistent with their appointing President’s preferences on political issues that are salient at the time of their appointment.