What's the harm if Russians "interfered" in our elections? Why not allow foreigners to participate?

[coloradoatheist]

When the fuck did I fall into the Twilight Zone?

right-wing conservative: So Russian Intelligence is fucking with multimedia, passing along polarizing fake ads in an effort to undermine our democracy. Is it that big of a deal?!

Obama made a few speeches trying to reestablish moral authority and accountability after he became President and the right-wing lost its shit. Now the right-wing is hand waving away this Russian influence crap. I knew the right-wing was on the brink of being solely partisan and not political, but this is just unbelievable. I never thought I'd read about right-wing conservatives saying such things about Russia.

I guess I would have to see where I said that about Obama and from what thread. Please don't lump me into all right wing conservatives.

There is a huge difference between a group just saying Hillary sucks compared to like rigging election machines or buying off politicians.

The Russians didn't say "Hillary sucked". They said a whole bunch of things. They posted nonsensical right-wing and left-wing media online.

Had Clinton won, the Republicans would be investigating her links to Russia with uncompromising zealousness. Instead, Republican Congressman Nunes tried to sabotage the Russia intel investigation, the President fired the acting FBI head, the acting Attorney General, and the US Attorney in the Southern District of New York, who's office was involved with a major money laundering case involving a law firm connected to the meeting with Donald Trump Jr, and the fourth ranking DoJ administrator (rev'ing up Saturday Night Massacre II - The Dumbening)... and still the right-wing is acting as if this is 'business as usual'.

I realize that I figure out plots in movies or television shows or comedy routines quicker than many, but really, you should have arrived at the "holy fuck" point a while ago.

Of course the other side would do it, it's the normal political bickering involved in politics. But if the only argument is that Russia was able to better use Facebook than the Democrats, then just sore losers.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

As Jolly pointed out there are non-Americans on this board. Should we ban them from talking about our elections?

Is there no distinction between a non-American participating on an online forum and a foreign agent(s) posing as Americans using fabricated social media profiles and using the alias as a provocateur?

How about a bot written to share and re-share both fake and inflammatory material?

I noticed accounts that were obsessed with pushing the Russian position on the MH 370 were also heavily promoting anti-GMO and sometimes anti-Vaccine conspiracy theories. Those same accounts were magically anti-Clinton and pro-Trump until Trump bombed a Syrian air base then they changed their tune. A few of them went dark for awhile but woke back up when the first Mueller indictments came out.

Am I incorrect in making a distinction between this type of social media participant and actual people just having a discussion?

It's still free speech. And what prevented Hillary from using social media to spread her message? There was a lot of support for Hillary on facebook and other sites.

Provocation of lies might not actually be free speech, especially when designed to undermine our democracy. Russia wasn't pulling for anyone, only to increase polarization.

 

[laughing dog]

There are a number of different issues. First, I think electioneering should be as transparent as possible. Regardless of one's view of the content of the Russian "interference", their activities were deliberately hidden. One would think that would indicate to even the most obtuse or partisan observer that the Russians believed what they were doing was wrong. Otherwise, why hide the source? Everyone should be able to judge the validity of any content for themselves, but that includes knowing the source.
Second, it is hypocritical of the US government to complain about such "interference", when we engage in such activities around the world.

Do I think Russian "interference" gave Trump the election? Probably not, but even if it did, that those activities worked because HRC ran a lousy campaign - her campaign took for granted the white blue collar vote in Michigan, Pennslyvania and Ohio.

 

[KeepTalking]

One way or another there is money to be made by allowing foreigners to "interfere" in U.S. elections.

If they run ads it generates income which can be taxed. (Haven't Google and Twitter etc. profited from this "Russian interference"?)

Why not tax this advertising, perhaps ALL advertising, so the whole nation benefits. It already is taxed of course, but maybe this kind of tax should be increased. Perhaps advertising per se should be taxed, as a special form of income to be taxed at a higher rate than other kinds of business profit.

So by eliminating ALL restrictions on contributions to election campaigns, this could become a significant source of government revenue. The elections are a farce anyway, no matter who wins. It doesn't matter if the contributions change who gets elected -- we will get the same nonsense outcomes anyway, no matter who wins. But at least the campaigns or contributions can be taxed in order to raise revenue and reduce the public deficits.

And why shouldn't some of that revenue come from foreigners? Why should we object if foreigners spend some of their money here which we can tax? (Also it would put an end to the meaningless investigations and partisan accusations back and forth over who broke the law and who "colluded" with whom, which is wasting government and news-media resources.)

How can it hurt the country if foreigners influence which demagogue-blowhard gets elected?

I



If you think our elections are farcical, then it would seem that you would be in favor of rules and laws making them less so. Why would you want to make them even more problematic at reflecting the democratic will of the governed? What do you stand to gain by letting any government in the world pour money into our elections? Are you that desperate to save a few dollars every year at tax time?

think the tax think is not important, but on the other side is free speech that bad it needs to be removed?

This is not a free speech issue. If it were, however, I would be compelled to point out that free speech, as it is codified in our constitution, only applies to citizens of the USA. If Russia wants to engage in free speech, perhaps they should first look toward affording that right to their citizens.

As Jolly pointed out there are non-Americans on this board. Should we ban them from talking about our elections?

No, we shouldn't, and no one is advocating that we should. They should not, however, be able to influence our elections in any other manner. When it comes to our Russian friends who post on this board, I would advocate that they use caution, as they would not want their government to become aware of any "free speech" in which they might engage that could cast Uncle Vlad in a bad light. No worries though, they have likely been spoken with by Uncle Vlad, or one of his agents, and have their "free speech" marching orders. I am sure they will keep it in line.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I guess I would have to see where I said that about Obama and from what thread. Please don't lump me into all right wing conservatives.

There is a huge difference between a group just saying Hillary sucks compared to like rigging election machines or buying off politicians.

The Russians didn't say "Hillary sucked". They said a whole bunch of things. They posted nonsensical right-wing and left-wing media online.

Had Clinton won, the Republicans would be investigating her links to Russia with uncompromising zealousness. Instead, Republican Congressman Nunes tried to sabotage the Russia intel investigation, the President fired the acting FBI head, the acting Attorney General, and the US Attorney in the Southern District of New York, who's office was involved with a major money laundering case involving a law firm connected to the meeting with Donald Trump Jr, and the fourth ranking DoJ administrator (rev'ing up Saturday Night Massacre II - The Dumbening)... and still the right-wing is acting as if this is 'business as usual'.

I realize that I figure out plots in movies or television shows or comedy routines quicker than many, but really, you should have arrived at the "holy fuck" point a while ago.

Of course the other side would do it, it's the normal political bickering involved in politics.

No. It wouldn't be. Much like how Benghazi had absolutely nothing to do with the murders of 4 Americans at the embassy. It was solely about politics. The Democrat investigation isn't about politics. It is a continuation of a panic fest at the CIA and FBI after they, with help from Europeans intelligence that one campaign was meeting with Russian Government officials or assets. We now are starting to learn the names of who met what, including the President's son!

But if the only argument is that Russia was able to better use Facebook than the Democrats, then just sore losers.

You are completely out of your mind. Trump fired the head of the FBI to try and stop this investigation. He admitted as much directly to the damn Russians... on tape... in a meeting that US press was excluded from, and you want to claim this is about poor sportsmanship?!

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

What this really all boils down to is the most self-absorbed and worst candidate the Democrats have had in a long time trying to save face after losing to the clown that is Donald Trump. She went on an excuse making book tour, blamed the reds, called Bernie's supporters sexist, anything and everythingl to avoid accepting her historic failure. And the Democratic (misnomer) Party pointing at everything they can think of to deflect from their own corruption. It is truly a sad thing to see happening, when they could have been pushing for actual progress.

 

[dismal]

I guess I would have to see where I said that about Obama and from what thread. Please don't lump me into all right wing conservatives.

There is a huge difference between a group just saying Hillary sucks compared to like rigging election machines or buying off politicians.

The Russians didn't say "Hillary sucked". They said a whole bunch of things. They posted nonsensical right-wing and left-wing media online.

Had Clinton won, the Republicans would be investigating her links to Russia with uncompromising zealousness. Instead, Republican Congressman Nunes tried to sabotage the Russia intel investigation, the President fired the acting FBI head, the acting Attorney General, and the US Attorney in the Southern District of New York, who's office was involved with a major money laundering case involving a law firm connected to the meeting with Donald Trump Jr, and the fourth ranking DoJ administrator (rev'ing up Saturday Night Massacre II - The Dumbening)... and still the right-wing is acting as if this is 'business as usual'.

I realize that I figure out plots in movies or television shows or comedy routines quicker than many, but really, you should have arrived at the "holy fuck" point a while ago.

Of course the other side would do it, it's the normal political bickering involved in politics. But if the only argument is that Russia was able to better use Facebook than the Democrats, then just sore losers.

Well, to be fair Clinton may not have been able to match the $100,000 the Russians spent on facebook ads. She only spent $1.2 billion.

 

[KeepTalking]

What this really all boils down to is the most self-absorbed and worst candidate the Democrats have had in a long time trying to save face after losing to the clown that is Donald Trump. She went on an excuse making book tour, blamed the reds, called Bernie's supporters sexist, anything and everythingl to avoid accepting her historic failure. And the Democratic (misnomer) Party pointing at everything they can think of to deflect from their own corruption. It is truly a sad thing to see happening, when they could have been pushing for actual progress.

No, this is not about Hillary, no matter how much you and she would like it to be. Comey was not a democrat. Mueller is not a Democrat. They are life long members of law enforcement, and actual Republicans, who are fighting against their own entrenched party to bring corruption to light, and to make those who have engaged in this corruption pay for it. They are doing it to try to keep it from happening again. You are welcome to cheerlead for whichever side you find more entertaining from your comfort zone north of the border, but some of us are going to have to deal with the fallout of these recent events for years to come. The people who broke the law need to go to jail, no matter what political office they currently inhabit, or which political party they have decided to hang their hat with.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What this really all boils down to is the most self-absorbed and worst candidate the Democrats have had in a long time trying to save face after losing to the clown that is Donald Trump.

Except, for the thousandth time, the investigation into Russian interference in the US Election for 2016 started in late spring / early summer of 2016, while the election was held at least 4 months after the investigation started!

How in the world did the entire right-wing all manage to suffer from severe brain trauma which affected their long-term memory?

 

[Elixir]

What's the harm if Russians "interfered" in our elections? Why not allow foreigners to participate?

Two words for you:

DONALD
TRUMP

How can it hurt the country if foreigners influence which demagogue-blowhard gets elected?

Not all demagogue-blowhards are created equal.
Some have a vestige of ethics, don't have corrupt business interests all over the world, etc. etc.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

What this really all boils down to is the most self-absorbed and worst candidate the Democrats have had in a long time trying to save face after losing to the clown that is Donald Trump.

Except, for the thousandth time, the investigation into Russian interference in the US Election for 2016 started in late spring / early summer of 2016, while the election was held at least 4 months after the investigation started!

How in the world did the entire right-wing all manage to suffer from severe brain trauma which affected their long-term memory?

Hillary was hollering about "Bernie Bros" back then too. Her wannabe victimhood act was an attempt at winning an election then turned into an excuse why she lost it. This is a candidate who bought a political party to stack a primary for her and had the media pushing hard for her in the general, and yet trying to present her as a historical underdog breaking glass ceilings.

- - - Updated - - -

What's the harm if Russians "interfered" in our elections? Why not allow foreigners to participate?

Two words for you:

DONALD
TRUMP

Do any of you really believe that Russian interference cost Hillary the election and not her decades of being hated by the right and her own corruption and self-entitled "I'm with her" rhetoric, and lack of known policy agenda?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Hillary was hollering about "Bernie Bros" back then too. Her wannabe victimhood act was an attempt at winning an election then turned into an excuse why she lost it. This is a candidate who bought a political party to stack a primary for her and had the media pushing hard for her in the general, and yet trying to present her as a historical underdog breaking glass ceilings.

Thanks for not even bothering to try and cover up that the investigation started well before the election ever happened. All the other stuff you said is irrelevant.

 

[Trausti]

Do any of you really believe that Russian interference cost Hillary the election and not her decades of being hated by the right and her own corruption and self-entitled "I'm with her" rhetoric, and lack of known policy agenda?

"Russia hacked the election for Trump" is the loonie left's equivalent of the loonie right's "Obama was born in Kenya." Horseshoe Theory.

 

[zorq]

Do any of you really believe that Russian interference cost Hillary the election and not her decades of being hated by the right and her own corruption and self-entitled "I'm with her" rhetoric, and lack of known policy agenda?

"Russia hacked the election for Trump" is the loonie left's equivalent of the loonie right's "Obama was born in Kenya." Horseshoe Theory.

Putting aside the fact that I've never met a genuine leftist who insists "Russia hacked the election for Trump," only rightists strawmanning that position....

Russia clearly thought it's meddling was worth it. Otherwise it wouldn't have paid real money to do the meddling.

Was the meddling worth it? I don't know, but I do know that they got the result that Putin was hoping for.

 

[Elixir]

Hillary was hollering about "Bernie Bros" back then too. Her wannabe victimhood act was an attempt at winning an election then turned into an excuse why she lost it. This is a candidate who bought a political party to stack a primary for her and had the media pushing hard for her in the general, and yet trying to present her as a historical underdog breaking glass ceilings.

- - - Updated - - -

What's the harm if Russians "interfered" in our elections? Why not allow foreigners to participate?

Two words for you:

DONALD
TRUMP

Do any of you really believe that Russian interference cost Hillary the election and not her decades of being hated by the right and her own corruption and self-entitled "I'm with her" rhetoric, and lack of known policy agenda?

Believe? No. That is only of several factors, any one of which might have changed the electoral outcome. HRC won the popular vote, BIGLY - despite 30 years of prophylactic attacks, investigations, and Jim Comey, Team Cheato and Uncle Vlad's (among others) best efforts. But the issue here is that the usa has a dishonest, despotic, incompetent, malicious, mendacious prick for a president. It would be nice to be able to drop one or two of those invectives.

 

[ZiprHead]

One way or another there is money to be made by allowing foreigners to "interfere" in U.S. elections.

You're philosophy that the pursuit of money is the greatest good is inhumane and immoral.

 

[Trausti]

. . . prophylactic attacks . . .

Where were you going with that?

 

[Underseer]

I would like to thank the conservatives in this thread for finally admitting that they would be perfectly OK with treason even if it happened.

So it's not just Trump who is a traitor, but Republicans in general.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

How does either money or foreign "interference" in elections do damage to the country?

I don't know about you, but I think elections should be about people deciding the best way to run their own country, . . .

But obviously that's not what we have. And excluding foreigners from "interfering" doesn't make the elections work any better. Allowing foreigners to play some role does not mean the people are no longer running the country. If we allow some foreigners to be in the country -- e.g., tourists -- does that mean it's no longer "our" country, or that we still are not running it? So then how are we not still running "our own country" even if we allow foreigners to have some influence in the elections?

What's a serious example of damage to the country which might happen as a result of allowing foreigners to "influence" or "interfere" with or "meddle" in the elections?

. . . people deciding the best way to run their own country, not about making money.

But what's the harm if some people make money in the process? especially if some of that money can be taxed or is spent paying for the elections?

Don't lots of printers and sign-makers and propagandists etc. make money off the elections? Don't the media and other institutions profit from them? Does this make the elections corrupt? There must be millions of workers and business owners who profit from them. Is that bad? How is it even possible to hold elections of any kind without some people making profit from them? To eliminate money from it would require eliminating elections altogether and adopting a different form of political system.

I don't even think money should be involved at all in elections. No campaign contributions. They all lead to corruption.

What about allowing people to volunteer their time to a candidate? Why wouldn't that also be corrupt? Why is it OK to volunteer your time but not your money which you spent time to earn? One volunteer works going door-to-door, another "volunteer" works hard to run a business so he can donate to his candidate. What's the difference?

So you would also have to ban all volunteer work done for candidates.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why should propagandists or contributors have to be identified? or foreigners have to register?

It's actually not illegal for foreigners to lobby to our government officials or to try to influence (usually). Since we are alleged to be a free country, though, we endeavor to have some characteristics of the government such as transparency.

Does this mean basically that any advertiser must register, or anyone promoting anything, has to be identified in their promotional material?

What about a book? Suppose you publish a book which promotes something, but you don't identify yourself in it? Should that be illegal? Why should people be prohibited from promoting something unless they identify themselves? What's wrong with a society where people are allowed to propagandize or promote anything they want, of any kind other than something criminal, and still hide their identity? What's wrong with those being propagandized having just the propaganda and judging it per se on its merit without knowing who produced the propaganda?

That means that when a foreign government does work with a lobbyist they have to register as a foreign agent. If they lie that is a big deal as they may be hiding something.

Why is it necessarily wrong to be "hiding" something?

Suppose you give to a charity but want to remain anonymous? So you're "hiding something" -- but you're not doing any harm. If what you're hiding is criminal in itself then that is the crime, but not that you're "hiding" it.

So why should a foreigner have to "register" as a foreigner in order to do something non-criminal which a citizen could do legally? If a citizen could do it legally, then why couldn't a foreigner also do it legally without having to "register" first? What makes it bad if a foreigner does it, but NOT bad if a citizen did the same thing?

Ultimately, this knowledge transfer of transparent sources of information, funding, and efforts needs to come to the voter so that when they make decisions in the voting booth they understand why various informations are claimed.

You mean regardless where the information comes from, including if citizens are doing it?

But even then, why should the propagandist have to be identified? You donate to a candidate or a cause and their campaign is made more successful by it. What is wrong with that, even if you keep your identity secret so no one knows that you promoted it? Why does the person influenced need to know who it was who promoted that cause? or changed their mind with their propaganda?

You change your mind, or your vote, because of the propaganda -- but you don't know who published it or donated to that propaganda. Why is that wrong? Why can't you make an intelligent judgment about it based on the reasoning, and your investigation into it, regardless of who published it or promoted it?