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

[Lumpenproletariat]

But why is only FOREIGN influence in elections evil? Why does "foreign" = evil?

You aren't paying attention. You are the one insisting that this sort of influence should be acceptable because we are working with a broken system already, otherwise why did you bring up the fact that the system is already broken?

If the "influence" you mean is something basically criminal, then it should be illegal for ANYONE to do it, not just foreigners (whether the system is "broken" or not -- that's beside the point). So we don't need laws making it illegal for foreigners per se to "influence" elections -- rather we might need to make it illegal for anyone to engage in criminal acts which influence the elections.

But to simply "influence" the elections is not criminal. As long as no criminal act is done, as part of this influencing the elections, it should not be illegal, i.e., for foreigners to donate to candidates the same as Americans do. Or to run ads.

So then how are we not still running "our own country" even if we allow foreigners to have some influence in the elections?

The word "some" is tricky because 99% is some. If we keep giving away "some" influence to the highest bidder there may come a time when there isn't as much "our country" as "their country."

It's all just xenophobia until you offer a hypothetical example of what might go wrong.

Obviously, the people who have our best interests at heart is always going to be US.

What are "our best interests"? This is just a slogan unless you identify which interests you mean. There are many interests, and "we" don't always share the same interests despite your "our best interests" rhetoric.

This is all sloganistic xenophobia unless you name a particular interest which is threatened by allowing foreigners to contribute to a political campaign. I have already given two concrete examples where foreign "influence" in U.S. elections would serve the "best interests" of the U.S. Why can't you give one concrete example where it would hurt "our best interests"? Why do you have nothing but xenophobic slogans to offer?

Why let people who DON'T have our best interests at heart drastically affect us when it is so easy to prevent?

Why can't you give an example of such a thing? I've given you an example where such foreign influence would benefit us. And there are probably many such examples. And when their cause would not be best for the U.S., we should be able to see that, just as we do when certain American factions promote a cause which is bad for our country. Do you want to outlaw Americans supporting any political campaign when their opinion happens to be wrong?

We can choose the best course without having to outlaw those who have a different opinion on what the best course is. There is no reason to assume that an opinion of a foreigner has to be bad for the U.S. and therefore should be censored.

Will their influence on the election benefit us? Maybe. Will it benefit them? Always.

That's true of ANYONE who participates in the elections, including American citizens. In each case their influence will benefit them but maybe not the country. There is no reason to assume that any foreign influence in our country must always be a bad one, or even usually is bad. And even in the case when it is bad, their cause can be rejected, just as in the case of an American whose influence is a bad one. They should be allowed to have their influence, but their opinion can be rejected if they're wrong. Just because they're wrong does not mean their opinion has to be prohibited or banned from being expressed.

I.e., some foreigner (or foreign government) spends money on a candidate, so that candidate wins by a close margin. Maybe several candidates get such support from foreigners. How does that mean we lose the country? What specifically is it that goes wrong as a result of that person getting elected?

Specifically, because you seem too dense to put two and two together, the candidate chosen by foreigners benefits the foreigners possibly at the expense of the locals.

That's also true of the candidate promoted by certain Americans, who are promoting what's good for them but not necessarily good for the nation or the state or the district. The winning faction in the election often gains a benefit for themselves at the expense of everyone else. But this doesn't mean they should be prohibited from participating and having their influence in the election. Often their influence is good. In fact the influence in itself is probably good even if their particular cause is not and should be rejected. It's still good for them to promote their cause and influence the society with their input, for the educational value, even when they are wrong.

That's why the foreigners chose their candidate, there is no other reason for them to do so.

Likewise the American partisan who chose a candidate. Their influence is to promote what benefits that American or that party, even though it's good only for that partisan faction and is bad for everyone else.

There is good reason to believe that most American factions are really very self-serving and interested in promoting only their own narrow interests at the expense of the country overall.

Is the candidate a Manchurian candidate? Maybe.

Such a plot or conspiracy could just as easily be organized by Americans as by foreigners. It should be illegal for anyone to organize such a conspiracy, regardless what their nationality is. Just make any such conspiracy illegal. There's no need to have a law saying that specifically foreigners or Catholics or vegetarians or atheists or Freemasons etc. may not do such a thing. Just have a law saying that no one may engage in such a conspiracy.

Is the candidate going to give favorable trade deals to the foreigners? Maybe.

And also favorable to the U.S. What's wrong with a trade deal that is favorable to everyone? Most rhetoric about "favorable trade deals" is sloganistic xenophobic unpatriotic anticapitalistic populist demagoguery slurped up by idiots.

Is the candidate being blackmailed by the foreigners and leveraged as their pawn? Maybe.

It should be illegal for ANYONE to blackmail and leverage a candidate as their pawn, whether the blackmailer is a foreigner or an American. It's probably already illegal for anyone to blackmail a candidate. We don't need laws that single out foreigners or Presbyterians or humanists or Sagittarians or other special groups to prohibit them from engaging in blackmail. Just have a general law against all blackmail, by anyone.

Is the candidate beholden to the foreigners for helping with this election and dependent on them for help in the next election? Maybe.

Any candidate is "beholden" to his supporters and dependent on them for future help, including citizens who supported him. There is nothing wrong with a candidate serving those who supported him in the election.

Or, if it's bad for the country if a candidate serves those who supported him in the election, then all our current practices need to change so as to make it illegal for anyone to give any support to candidates during the election. So then make it illegal for anyone, including citizens, to support candidates during the election. As long as candidates have supporters during the election, candidates will serve those supporters after being elected.

How many sweetheart deals that might have otherwise stayed local will this candidate dole out in exchange for campaign help next time?

You're arguing here for banning any support for a candidate from outside the candidate's district or state. This means banning free speech by public persons in favor of candidates in a different part of the country, including by an elected office-holder from a different district or state. So no Senator could endorse any other Senator or travel to give speeches, nor any celebrity, etc. Any support from outside persons or interests could result in "sweetheart deals" that otherwise would have stayed local.

This is more xenophobia, which takes many forms. Only the locals should have any voice -- all them damn outsiders are our enemies.

At the very least, if the influence is locally sourced, money isn't going to be flowing out of the local economy.

The idea that we are damaged by money "flowing out of the local economy" is paranoia. There is no harm in money flowing wherever it's necessary to serve the market demand. Give an example where it's bad for people if the money flows "out of the local economy" other than something criminal like outsiders robbing the local bank.

But when foreigners are peddling the influence, you can almost guarantee that some money is going across the border.

There is nothing wrong with money "going across the border" as long as it's the market forces of supply and demand driving it. You're saying the U.S. is harmed every time an American spends money in a foreign country?

But such extremes aren't necessary. Minute influence can still tip the balance of power in vastly different directions with countless repercussions.

But how are "repercussions" or "influence" necessarily bad just because it's foreigners doing it? How does it make us worse off?

They aren't necessarily bad but they are potentially catastrophic, so why let that sort of chaos in to the system if you don't have to.

But ANY influence is potentially catastrophic. How is FOREIGN influence potentially more catastrophic than domestic influence? How does a FOREIGNER donating to a candidate pose a greater risk of catastrophe than an American donating to a candidate?

It is interesting that no one can give a concrete example how donations from a foreigner pose any threat to the elections or the country. Other than the same possible forms of corruption which could come from citizens supporting the candidate. So to prevent the "chaos" requires banning not only foreigners, but ANYONE, including a citizen, from supporting a candidate. And not only is it harmful for citizens to donate money to a candidate, but also to donate time as a volunteer campaign worker.

(QUESTION: Is it illegal for a candidate to receive help from foreign volunteers? who might distribute literature or make phone calls? It should be if the law is to be consistent. The same law banning them from donating should also ban them from serving as volunteers, to be consistent.)

Many drunk drivers are perfectly capable of driving home safely, but we outlaw all of them because of the risk they pose to society.

But that risk to society is much greater than the risk from sober drivers. Where a certain behavior is much more risky, and can be measured with statistics, there is a reasonable basis for restricting it. But there is no such higher risk to society posed by foreign contributors to a candidate. No one has been able to give a single example what the greater risk is. Not even a hypothetical example.

Since no one sees fit to offer an example, I'll do it for you:

Suppose Mexicans send contributions to a U.S. candidate who pledges to introduce a bill requiring U.S. taxpayers to provide $1000 to every family in Mexico. Or some such handout.

At least that's a hypothetical possibility. But this candidate would have no chance of getting elected if he announced this pledge in his campaigning, so it would have to be a secret pledge made to Mexicans. Even then it would be very difficult to keep it secret that he had made this pledge, and he would be defeated as it became known. But even if he somehow got elected, his bill would die and receive no support.

So in a hypothetical example it's very unlikely that the hypothetical damage to be caused could ever happen. If you can't give a hypothetical example of any realistic threat posed by foreigners "meddling" in our elections, it's because there is no such example.

Don't play dumb, you know how corruption works.

You mean anything foreigners do is automatically corrupt?

I told you not to play dumb. You asked for an example of what could go wrong and I am saying that I don't have to because CORRUPTION could occur and the consequences of corruption are well known by both of us.

But that's just as true with DOMESTIC corruption. And yet we allow citizens to contribute to candidates, which does lead to corruption. So to be consistent you have to ban ALL forms of citizens contributing to any candidate.

But let me break it down for you, because you can't seem to follow along. People giving favors often expect favors in return. What do you think a big pile of cash that helps you win a cushy job is? It's a campaign contribution and it's a big favor.

This is an argument against ALL contributions to candidates, not just FOREIGN contributions. And it has to include ANY form of contribution, not just donating money. It has to include any kind of volunteer work for a candidate, because those volunteers will expect "favors in return" like a cushy job or whatever. So by your reasoning it should be illegal for anyone to give any kind of support to a candidate, including any volunteer work.

Some corruption is already illegal, regardless whether it's foreigners doing it. Are there some additional kinds of corruption which should be made illegal? If so, then we should make them illegal. But just that foreigners do something to help a candidate doesn't mean something criminal happens or that some damage is inflicted. What is the crime? or the damage? or the loss to the country?

Corruption is rarely uncovered until the damage has already been done. Why take the risk?

Again, that applies just as much to DOMESTIC corruption. So ALL support for any candidate has to be banned, in order to ensure that no corruption can happen. So all donations of time and money to a candidate has to be banned. Not only donations of money and not only FOREIGN contributions, but ALL support of any kind from anyone to a candidate.

Laws themselves don't prevent people from breaking them. Why let people who don't have our best interests at heart meddle with our lives?

That includes our fellow citizens also, who frequently don't have "our best interests at heart" because they are pursuing only their limited narrow interests and not the interests of the rest of us. So therefore you must ban ANYONE from supporting any candidate in any way.

Would you let a stranger off the street make major life decisions for you? Tell you who to marry? Tell you when to quit your job or demand a raise? They might be doing you a favor or they might be trying to screw with you, or they may have their eyes on your current wife or job and are trying to get you out of the picture. WHY TAKE THE RISK?

Again your argument is to prohibit ANYONE, including citizens, from contributing to a candidate, because 99.99% of them are strangers "off the street" who don't have "our best interests" in mind but might be trying to screw us. Many political activists and volunteers and donors do not have "our best interests" in mind but will screw us if they get what they want.

If you don't, now is your chance to go learn about it. Corruption from foreign sources works the same as internal ones.

Then deal with it the same way. If we have a way to address internal corruption, then do the same in the case of foreign corruption. But why does that mean the NON-corrupt foreigners cannot be allowed to influence elections? What's the "corruption" if a foreigner donates to a U.S. candidate? or runs a political ad? Why assume it's automatically "corruption" just because it's from a foreigner?

If anyone does something corrupt, then bust them. But just influencing the election is not corrupt in itself, or just being a foreigner.

Again, it is an unnecessary risk.

So then ANYONE influencing the election, including a citizen, is posing a risk, and so therefore ANY and ALL support for a candidate has to be banned, not just support from foreigners.

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?

Gee, Mr Al Capone wants to keep prohibition going, I guess his cash for the air time he buys trying to swing the election more than makes up for all the other consequences his position might inflict on the nation... Right?

So because you disagree with someone's politics, they should be prohibited from supporting a candidate? Or because you think that person is selfish, he should be suppressed from participating? So, no one may support any candidate or participate if their political views are judged to be wrong or they are selfish?

Will, you pay attention? I said nothing bout "wrong" or "selfish" political opinions.

You said Al Capone's opinion about prohibition has to be prevented from being advertised, because it would inflict bad consequences onto the nation.

So you're implying that all opinions which are wrong or would cause bad consequences have to be banned from the elections. So if you think increasing taxes is good for the nation and cutting them would inflict bad consequences, then any speeches to cut taxes have to be banned from the campaign, just like you want to ban Al Capone (or his candidate) from giving speeches to keep prohibition going.

This was addressing the monetary aspect that you think is so great. The cash infusion of the marketing campaign for one election is minuscule in comparison to the drastic damage that can be done in one election.

Any candidate, or any support for a candidate, might possibly lead to drastic damage if he's elected. So therefore all candidates should be banned, according to you. Whether he receives cash contributions or not. There's always a chance that any given candidate will inflict drastic damage onto the nation if elected.

You're not giving a reason why it's OK to contribute your time to a candidate but wrong to contribute your money. They're basically the same, except that the money offers the additional benefit that it probably can be taxed.

The biggest difference in my mind is that time is more scarce, and it's distribution is more equitable. This makes it less likely to corrupt a candidate when donated. If the head of a major corporation wants to put 100 hours of his own time into helping out a candidate, he is not likely to stand out as deserving of special treatment when hundreds of other people have done the same.

Maybe there's some truth to this, but it's irrelevant.

First, it has nothing to do with "foreign influence" -- so this gives no reason why foreigners should not be allowed to contribute to candidates.

But also, there is no cause promoted by "the rich" in general which would harm "the poor" and thus put "the poor" at a disadvantage caused by the large donations from "the rich" to candidates who end up promoting that cause.

So, even if "the rich" have extra influence because of their large donations to candidates, this does not end up hurting the middle- or lower-income classes, or rather, the support of the rich goes toward all the progressive programs which are intended to help "the poor" and which "the poor" and "middle class" are demanding. Of course at the same time their support also goes to conflicting or anti-progressive programs, because the support from "the rich" is spread out among the differing and conflicting programs and among the differing and conflicting candidates and parties.

The truth is that "the rich" mostly favor the same policies which "the poor" are supposed to benefit from, such as minimum wage increase and "free health care for all" and so on. Even more "good-paying jobs" and "fair trade" and "social justice" and everything which is supposed to protect "the poor" and "middle class" from the evil capitalist exploiters. There are no proposed remedies to the "social injustices" suffered by "the poor" other than those which "the rich" are promoting and getting passed into law. So depriving "the rich" of this extra power their money buys them would not change the actual practical outcomes produced by the political power-wielders.

So in reality there would be no social gain by making all the supporters of candidates equal. Or, no gain for "the poor" or other group needing better representation. So no benefit would be served by trying to impose an equality among all the supporters of candidates to make it so none has more influence than others. I.e., even with UNequal influence caused by money donations there is no essential difference in actual outcomes than there would be if all the supporters had equal influence.

Of course it's much more complicated than this, and an additional 2 or 3 dozen Walls of Text might begin to scratch the surface of it.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Suppose the Cuban government contributes to a U.S. candidate who favors ending the Cuban trade embargo. What's wrong with that?

Ending this embargo would be good for the U.S. -- for tourists and for companies wanting to do business with Cuba.

So, what's good for Cuba is also good for the U.S. In most cases the interests are not in conflict between the U.S. and the other country which might want to influence U.S. elections.

This is not a good analogy. A candidate on the payroll of a foreign government has suspect loyalties.

Whatever you mean by your "on the payroll" and "suspect loyalties" rhetoric, in this example there is no harm to the U.S. as a result of the candidate receiving donations from Cuba and promoting an end to the embargo. Ending the embargo would benefit the U.S.

All that matters is whether the practical outcome is good for the U.S.

Meddling, on the other hand, everyone does it.

"Meddling" here means foreigners, government or private persons, spending money in U.S. elections to influence the voters, which is illegal. The question is why it should be illegal.

See Obama Brexit speech.

-------- (pause to watch speech)

OK, I watched the first 90 charismatic seconds or so -- can't put up with any more. Why don't you summarize the part which pertains to our topic.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

But there is no reason why all foreign "interference" in U.S. elections should be prohibited. Such as foreigners contributing to a political candidate. Or foreigners running ads to influence the voters. These are illegal but should not be.

How about foreign agents posing as Americans in the course of these activities?

That is the lion's share of the activity that I encountered both on social media and in "news" websites that both produced fake content and that acted as a re-broadcaster of bullshit and conspiracy theories. The share-reshare bot nets got it so that a lot of the horseshit was at the top of search engine results.

That is fraudulent. No?

I don't know. Whatever you're describing -- let's say it's fraudulent. So then make ALL such fraud illegal, no matter who does it. Whether by an American or by a foreigner. All fraud which profits the deceiver and does damage to the unsuspecting victim, or to society, should be illegal, no matter who perpetrates it.

That doesn't answer why all foreign influence on the elections should be illegal.

 

[Harry Bosch]

But there is no reason why all foreign "interference" in U.S. elections should be prohibited. Such as foreigners contributing to a political candidate. Or foreigners running ads to influence the voters. These are illegal but should not be.

How about foreign agents posing as Americans in the course of these activities?

That is the lion's share of the activity that I encountered both on social media and in "news" websites that both produced fake content and that acted as a re-broadcaster of bullshit and conspiracy theories. The share-reshare bot nets got it so that a lot of the horseshit was at the top of search engine results.

That is fraudulent. No?

I don't know. Whatever you're describing -- let's say it's fraudulent. So then make ALL such fraud illegal, no matter who does it. Whether by an American or by a foreigner. All fraud which profits the deceiver and does damage to the unsuspecting victim, or to society, should be illegal, no matter who perpetrates it.

That doesn't answer why all foreign influence on the elections should be illegal.

For me, it's real simple. I want my politician working for my interests, not a foreign interest. It's clear to me that if the Russian intervention hadn't been exposed, that Trump would have eliminated the sanctions on Russia. He probably would have allowed the weakening of Nato which could have lead to WW3 as Russia seems to want to expand.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Still no example how foreign influence on elections does any harm.

small talk:

Meh. Another impenetrable wall of text from Lumpy.

Y'ain't seen nothin' yet!

This posting style is more off-putting than the ideology it conveys, and that is saying something. I will endeavor to respond to the main points, but this will get tiring fast, just like every other discussion with Lumpy.

Take Relief Factor for those aches and pains.



down to business:

How does excluding foreigners from having an influence make the elections any better?

Because it reduces corruption, and corruption is a big part of what makes our elections farcical.

But it would reduce corruption to exclude ANYONE from having an influence.

Correct. This means that it is a good thing to disallow foreigners from the process, . . .

No, such curtailment of free speech/press/expression eliminates virtually no corruption. Any bad influence by foreigners still happens anyway, while only the good influence is discouraged by such disallowance of foreigners. The good foreigners who would contribute legitimately are censored from making their positive input while the bad ones circumvent the law one way or another and do whatever damage they would anyway. It is not "a good thing" to prevent the good while still allowing the bad and thus make the process more corrupt.

It's not a good thing to disallow any group, even though some corruption might be reduced by a tiny fraction with each additional group disallowed. We could reduce crime by exterminating half of all humans. But the benefit gained is less than the cost or harm done. Curtailing free speech/expression/press does more harm

. . . thereby reducing corruption.

No, virtually no corruption is reduced by eliminating a randomly-selected group from participating. Disallowing foreigners doesn't reduce corruption anymore than disallowing Catholics or right-handers or blue-eyed people or anyone whose last name begins with "J" or whose birthday is in February. Name any group -- the corruption eliminated by disallowing that group is insignificant and trivial, whether it's foreigners or any other random group you choose. You are not giving a reason why ONLY FOREIGNERS should be banned from the process. Citizens generally are just as likely to be corrupt as foreigners.

You are proving the point that there is no reason to target foreigners per se to be banned from supporting candidates. Total net corruption is not reduced by banning any particular group, including foreigners, from participating. Foreigners do not pollute the system more than other groups you can identify.

What's especially corrupt about foreigners?

That depends on the particular foreigner. They are extraneous to our political process, . . .

Not all of them are.

They generally have less role to play and mostly do not want to participate. But some of them are part of our social system and have a legitimate interest in the outcomes, just as a Californian might have an interest in a candidate on the east coast and might contribute to that candidate. Those who have an interest in "foreign" candidates might legitimately contribute to them, because they are promoting perhaps a particular faction or ideology or party, which is legitimate. If they want to promote something going on in another country, then they are NOT "extraneous" to it.

It's legitimate for someone in Mexico to contribute to a U.S. candidate in California or Arizona because of a genuine interest they have. And the World is so small now that there is really no clear separation of any part of the world from another such as to rule out a legitimate interest one might have in the political process of another country, no matter how far away it is. Obviously this is much greater when there is a close proximity, like one country bordering on another.

You can't name anything which could go wrong in allowing a foreigner to contribute to a candidate in another country, other than certain practices which not even a DOMESTIC contributor should engage in. All that's necessary is to ban criminal practices, like fraud, no matter who does it. The foreign contributor poses no more threat than a domestic contributor.

The potential damage from money in the system is REDUCED with the additional input of more contributors, of any kind or from anywhere, because those increased dollars cancel each other out, so that the only net result is a greater total of propaganda or inputs from all the factions wanting to influence the process. A greater total input tends toward a more valid total influence on the voters.

. . . extraneous to our political process, however, and therefore there is no necessity in allowing them to further to corrupt it.

They don't further corrupt it. Each additional input from different factions REDUCES the total corruption as a percentage of the whole process, because the total process increases as more and more factions participate, and so the corrupting element becomes a smaller and smaller percentage of the whole process.

So a process which increases by 10% because foreigners participate sees a smaller increase in corruption than the increase of the process, so the new percent of corruption decreases by a small percent.

E.g., there's more total corruption in a process where 10,000,000 people participate, compared to a process having only 10,000 participants. But the latter might easily be more corrupt as a whole because the smaller number of corrupt participants is still a greater percentage of the total participants. So allowing MORE total participants actually REDUCES the significant corruption happening.

There are many cases of CITIZENS doing something corrupt in the elections. How does eliminating foreigners per se from elections reduce corruption more than eliminating any other category of participant?

Our own citizens are integral to the political process, . . .

Anyone who has interests and wants to contribute to a candidate is "integral" to the process, and trying to prevent them from contributing is artificial and costly. The natural process, or the way of least resistance, is to allow them to contribute.

And citizens "integral" to the process benefit from allowing foreigners to contribute to candidates, just as they benefit from allowing other citizens to contribute. Some persons are less "integral" than others, but the non-citizen participates much less anyway, by choice, because of his much less "integral" role. No special restrictions are necessary to force out of the process persons who already choose not to participate in general, but when the foreigner does have an interest in a particular case, he is "integral" and can make a legitimate contribution.

. . . we can't remove them [our own citizens] if we want to preserve some semblance of legitimacy in our politics.

Yes we could "remove" them from contributing to candidates and still preserve legitimacy, but it is pointless to "remove" ANYONE who is a natural part of the process, including foreigners. It is paranoid to depict them as not "integral" and thus automatically insidious or posing some threat.

In reality there are no cases where the foreign interests per se pose a threat, other than those which would be just as dangerous if a citizen did the same. So for something criminal or destructive to the nation, there should be rules preventing ANYONE from doing it, whether it's a citizen or a foreigner.

It's pointless to wish we could reduce the number of participants and try to label some as intruders who have no legitimate interest vs. those who are "integral" -- the ones who want to contribute do have a legitimate interest and are "integral" by virtue of their desire to contribute. You're wrong in thinking that more participants makes the whole process more corrupt. The opposite is the case, as long as the participation takes a non-criminal form, such as just publishing an ad or donating to a candidate, or other acts which citizens may legally do.


Removing ANYONE who wants to participate makes the politics less legitimate.

Our politics would become more legitimate if we allowed EVERYONE to participate who wants to, even foreigners, provided they follow the same rules as citizens who contribute.

There's no need to worry about preserving "some semblance of legitimacy" by forcing ourselves to keep some participants who are "integral" but otherwise we'd like to "remove" or eliminate from participating. There is no such group that is more "integral" than another (i.e., citizens), except in the sense that such ones choose to participate while those less "integral" (foreigners) choose not to, without awkward laws trying to exclude ("remove") them from playing any role.

The truth is that a greater number of participants makes the total process LESS corrupt, not more. Because even though there's an increase in those who are corrupt, there is a DECREASE in their significance, as a percent of the total process, as the process widens more and more with the increase of those participating.

Our own citizens are integral to the political process . . . we can't remove them if we want to preserve some semblance of legitimacy . . . Foreigners, not so much.

Yes, foreigners generally are less "integral" -- but they already "remove" themselves as much as they need to be removed by virtue of their much less participation.

Foreigners generally DO NOT WANT to influence our elections, but the ones who do want to influence them (in a non-criminal manner) have a legitimate reason, so it works fine to just allow those foreigners who have an interest to contribute to candidates, with no worry about the great majority of them who will exclude themselves by their own choice.

So just allowing the natural course to go its way works best, where those who want to support a candidate may do so, as they wish, with no need to have any special system for them or restrictions or control over them as a special threat. They are no more a threat than citizens who contribute to candidates.

That said, I wouldn't have a problem with removing all private money from the political process, and publicly funding elections.

No, higher taxes are no solution, or forcing taxpayers to pay for obnoxious political ads, nor the process of selecting which candidates are the "legitimate" ones to be subsidized and which ones to be excluded as substandard by someone's arbitrary definition.

And no, we don't need those in power and their fanatic partisans choosing which commercials are healthy for us to watch and which ones not, and which ideologues are entitled to impose their propaganda onto us while banning others not approved from on high by the election czars. No, a "publicly funded election" hierarchy bureaucracy imposing its selected candidates and propaganda onto us won't fix anything, but only make it worse.

Does FOREIGN = CORRUPT? Why?

Not necessarily.

Then you're agreeing there's no reason to ban foreigners from participating, because it does not increase corruption as a significant part of the total system.

But when it does, then it would be unnecessary corruption with regard to our own political process.

ALL corruption is unnecessary and should be banned, whether it's foreign or domestic.

There's no net gain in banning all foreigners from participating, just as there's no net gain in banning all guns in order to get at a tiny number of bad guys. All the corruption, from citizens or from foreigners, can be targeted and effectively reduced, with no need to eliminate foreigners per se. Their participation makes the whole process better, including less corrupt, because the increased participation greatly exceeds any small additional corruption, thus making the process as a whole less corrupt.

But what does this "corruption" and "will of the governed not being recognized" etc. have to do with foreign "interference" in the elections?

In a democratic society, the will of the governed not being recognized is a huge problem that can eventually lead to the collapse of that society, or the morphing of that society into one that no longer bears any resemblance to democracy.

But the "will of the governed" is not threatened by the prospect of foreigners contributing to a candidate. If an ad run by a foreigner influences some voters, it does not mean the final vote result is contrary to "the will of the governed," even if that ad changes the outcome. There is nothing insidious about a voter changing his mind because he was influenced by something, no matter what this something was. Influencing people to change their mind does not change them into something false or alien or insidious. The choices they make after being influenced are still genuine choices and just as legitimate as the choices they would have made had they not been influenced. The influence on the person choosing is not invalidated or delegitimized or made insidious because it comes from a foreigner, anymore than if it had come from a citizen.

For some foreigners, destabilizing a major democratic nation by corrupting their elections is the whole point.

That sounds like criminal intent.

If we can identify any such criminal trying to destabilize or pervert the elections, perhaps they should be barred from donating to a candidate or running an ad. But it's because of their criminal behavior that they should be "removed" from participating, not because they are foreigners, and the same rules barring them should apply to ANYONE doing such criminal acts, whether they are foreigners or citizens.

I hope you aren't going to ask why destabilizing our nation is a bad thing, as I think even someone with your perverse ideology can figure that one out on their own.

Of course, because destabilizing our nation is criminal behavior, no matter who does it, whether a citizen or a foreigner. So have rules preventing ANYONE from doing such criminal acts. Rather than scapegoating all foreigners.

Foreign influence in the elections does NOT mean "corruption and the will of the governed not being recognized by their governors" -- this can be reduced by eliminating ANY influence in the elections, by ANYone, not just foreigners.

Yes, I agree, let's remove all private money from our elections.

No, eliminating ALL influence, or ALL money in the elections does more harm than good. There should be more of all this participation, not less, because any "corruption" eliminated by removing ALL that participation also eliminates the good which results from the participation, which far outweighs the corruption.

It's not only PRIVATE money, but public money too which you must eliminate in order to reduce the "corruption" (or perceived evil influence), because also those in power should not be able to influence the elections by designating which candidates get the public subsidy and which ones do not. To be consistent you'd want to eliminate ALL INFLUENCE of any kind on voters -- you're not distinguishing between which influence is OK and which is NOT OK. Those who put forth public funding and other schemes to replace private influence are only replacing one form of perverse influence on voters with another form equally obnoxious (and also more costly).

It's only a pretense that you want to eliminate "corruption" and harmful influence. Rather, your aim is to replace existing forms of influence with different forms of influence more to your liking, serving your interest, but not everyone else's.

But rather than picking and choosing which influences are pure and which ones impure, the right course is to open up the process to ALL those wishing to participate, i.e., to influence the outcome. That's what would reduce the total net corruption element.

Only if you assume that "those who will not be governed" have interests in conflict with "the governed" -- you're assuming the former group (foreigners) would necessarily thwart the latter (citizens) by their influence.

No. I don't have to assume that they would in all cases. Only that they could in some cases, that is enough for me, and should be enough for anyone who wants to reduce entirely UNNECESSARY corruption.

But it would not reduce corruption. Except in the sense that the number of crimes would be reduced by exterminating half the population.

Eliminating some players from the system who are chosen randomly does not improve the system, even though some bad behavior is eliminated by removing anyone, so the total population of those involved is reduced by that random elimination. But just reducing the raw number of bad behaviors, along with a greater number of good behaviors, is not an improvement if the way to do it is to meat-ax from the system a randomly-selected group of players, like exterminating half the population would reduce the future number of crimes (but not the real crime rate).

You're still not explaining how it ends up making the process any cleaner to target foreigners per se for removal, as opposed to some other randomly-selected group.

You can't equalize anything or make it less "disproportionate" (more "fair"?) by excluding some players

You couldn't be more wrong. Excluding unnecessary players is exactly how you make things more fair.

No, letting someone arbitrarily define others as "unnecessary" and excludable does not make anything more fair.

It's true that there are "citizens" vs. "foreigners" or "residents" vs. "non-residents" and other divisions which have some significance. There is some need to regulate locations and set jurisdictions, but not to separate people into the "necessary" vs. "unnecessary" categories and dictate who is allowed to "influence" whom.

Having "influence" on people is not something you can assign as proper to certain classes of people and improper to other classes. There is nothing about being "foreign" or an outsider or less "integral" or different-than-us etc. which makes someone unsuited to exercise influence, or which disentitles them to exert influence on others, and which the population needs to be protected from as posing a threatening "influence" on them.

To legally exclude certain targeted persons from "influencing" someone else, no matter who, and making it criminal for them to try to have such "influence" can never make anything more fair, or improve anything. The form of "influence" might be criminal in some cases, such as bribery, but that is prohibited criminal behavior for ANYONE to engage in, not just certain targeted persons whose only fault is that they are branded by someone as not "integral" or "unnecessary" or that they are foreign.

You cannot name a case where society is made better off by targeting certain select persons as not "integral" to a group and thus to be censored from exercising influence on the group. Rather you might identify certain persons engaging in criminal behavior -- but simply influence per se on someone is not criminal, and being branded as not "integral" does not make it criminal for someone to exert "influence" on the group.

Such categorizing people and herding them into separate groups, like coralling cattle separately and branding them, and imposing rules saying who may "influence" whom, or who has to be shielded from contact with whom, is at best a primitive tribal instinctive behavior left over from an earlier stage where preservation of a tribe necessitated the elimination of other tribes competing for the same limited resources.

The urge to eliminate foreigners from "influencing" elections is only this primitive instinct, based on a fear of being tainted by foreign contact, without any practical benefit served. You can't give a reason why one herd of humans may appropriately "influence" members of their own herd but may not be "influenced" by those outside the herd; and saying the outside contact is "unnecessary" is based only on the primitive instinct to divide the humans into these separate herds and prevent contact between them, for fear of transmitting some impurity from one to the other. There is no practical purpose served, but rather only harm done by such arbitrary quarantines or isolatings of humans to be herded into separate corrals.

Some practical divisions do exist, but there is no purpose served in making a religion out of the divisions and making them stronger by curtailing the individuals in the groups from having "influence" on those of another group.

rather, by unleashing all the players and their money you insure that none of them gains a monopoly on power, as they keep offsetting each other.

Wrong again. That would only enable the player who is able to bring the most money to bear on the process to gain that monopoly on power.

No, the one with the most money cannot gain any "monopoly" on power if there's no limit on who can join in with their money. There are too many players for any one of them to gain a monopoly. It's precisely the openness to all competing players which prevents any such monopoly.

The others fall by the wayside as they get outspent.

No one falls by the wayside just because they are out-influenced by another. All the ones influencing the voters remain in the process, and those having less money simply combine with others to increase or maximize their influence. Eliminating some players having more only leaves the inequality among the remaining players. No matter how much influence you eliminate from the system, you still have unequal influence being exercised by those allowed to remain.

Your phrase "as they get outspent" shows what you're really worried about -- i.e., the inequality.

It's not a "monopoly on power" that you fear (which cannot happen), but rather the inequality of the contributors. To ensure no one can outspend another, or have more influence than another, you have to eliminate any influence at all by anyone, meaning a total ban on free speech and press, so that no power clique like a publisher or broadcaster can increase its influence -- i.e., there can be no publishers or communicators. Anyone allowed to communicate has more influence/power than others who are restricted. Total control over all the media and prohibition of any speech (even by the controllers) on anything political would be the only way to ensure that no one exercises more influence than anyone else. Even private conversations would have to be monitored and censored to prevent people from being influenced by their next-door neighbor.

Whereas if you impose your cumbersome rules to make it more equitable, you only give more power to those players who are good at breaking the rules, or circumventing them, which they usually can do.

And they do so at their own peril.

The point is that they do it and will keep doing it despite your cumbersome system of rules, which will never stop them. You cannot impose any enforceable system to control who is allowed to influence whom. You will only empower those factions who are more aggressive at gaining influence and circumventing your rules.

They might find some temporary gains, but they run the very real risk of no longer being able to participate in the process at all once their rule breaking is revealed.

You're fantasizing. There is no possible system to prevent certain select groups from influencing certain other groups, like voters, or others, and breaking any rules you try to impose. Even if you catch some who break your rules, as any oppressive system does, these ones who got caught will only be replaced by others who will figure out how to do it better without getting caught.

. . . or when other influences are able to manipulate the electorate from outside with no chance that the negative aspects of that manipulation will affect them because they will not be governed by the result.

But they are affected by a (negative) result,

No, they are not. They are not citizens of the political entity that they have influenced, . . .

Not being a member of the entity you want to herd them into does not mean they are unaffected by the results. Some of them or their associates are in the country and are affected by just being there. They are impacted by the rules and the system in many ways. Even from abroad they are affected.

. . . so they will not see the negative consequences (higher taxes, fewer services, crumbling infrastructure, etc.).

They will see all these, in some cases even more than citizens if they are in business and must pay taxes, or need certain services and operate within the country. And they are motivated to favor the improved conditions in each case, sharing mostly the same interests as citizens and wanting conditions to improve.

Meanwhile, they can reap positive benefits by making sure that those consequences are worse than whatever is happening in their foreign land, . . .

It's PARANOIA to think foreigners try to make the consequences worse for the U.S., or for other countries. Do you try to make the consequences worse for other countries? Do you think the whole point of your nation is to seek bad consequences for other nations? and their destruction?

. . . making it more attractive to business, immigrants, etc.

What is more attractive is best for everyone, not just foreigners. It's good for the native population if the foreigners want things to be more attractive, for business or immigrants or anyone.

and even "from outside" they have an incentive to promote something positive, not negative -- i.e., a good result not only for themselves but also for those who are "the governed" or are from inside. There is not really so much difference between those "from outside" and those "from inside" as far as what their interest is. The interests might not be identical, but they generally overlap.

What the hell are you smoking. Whatever it is, put it down, or pass it to me, and then open a history book.

You can't quote one sentence from a history book showing that foreigners are more dangerous to the citizens than the citizens themselves doing the same act. If it's a criminal act, it's just as harmful to us whether it's a foreigner or a citizen who does it. Name an act which a foreigner can do, or has done, which was bad for the country but was not bad if a citizen did the same thing. You can't give any example. Not even a hypothetical example.

Influencing elections, e.g. You can't give any example of this which was not equally bad or good whether it was a foreigner or a citizen who did it.


(this Wall of Text to be continued)

 

[untermensche]

Who exactly is the president supposed to represent?

Who are their loyalties supposed to be towards?

 

[ZiprHead]

Lumpen, there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

You've been supplied with numerous valid reasons why it's bad. Your religion has blinded you.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Still no example how foreign influence on elections does any harm.

(continued from previous Wall of Text)

What do you stand to gain by letting any government in the world pour money into our elections?

By letting anyone and everyone "pour money" or anything else into them, we increase the sources of information and promote a greater variety of ideas. If some of those players are BAD guys, then let the GOOD guys also join in and oppose them. The more players the better. We stand to LOSE by restricting the players or disqualifying some who want to play.

And when I want to play, but I lack the means to play because of the influence of foreign money, what then?

That doesn't make any sense. How does "foreign money" cause you to "lack the means to play"?

Because "the means" in this case is money. If I am poor, or even just not rich, then I can't play because I don't have the means (money) to enter the game.

Others poorer than you do have the means to combine their money with others and thus influence the voters, as part of a group. And the rich also are contributing on BOTH sides in virtually all the elections and issues, so no one side is winning because only it gets money from the rich.

Whatever side you're on, it's a fact that there are rich donors on that side exerting influence which you agree with. There are no candidates running you can favor which are not already being supported by the rich. Being poor does not exclude your voice from being heard (unless possibly you're against ALL the candidates). If you favor ANY candidate at all, you cannot claim you are unable to play, because that candidate you favor has support from the rich and others like you who are poor.

To make any sense when you say "I can't play because I don't have the means (money) to enter the game" you have to mean that you are against ALL the candidates. You cannot make this complaint if you favor any candidate, because the money is there, or can be, contributed by you along with other poor folks. If your candidate loses, it's because he didn't have enough rich and poor supporters.

More money helps, but no one is eliminated from playing because they have less. Just because you lost doesn't mean you could not play. Many times the candidate with more money lost.

There's probably a million flaws about the election system,

And the largest one is the role that money plays in it.

No, another, perhaps worse, is the role that charisma plays. Only the charismatic candidates have a chance to win, which is a flaw because charismatic or speech-making ability does not correlate to any superior ability to make good decisions or solve social problems.

We can address the money problem. One way is to tax it, and there could even be a progressive tax on donations, so that larger donations are taxed at a higher rate than smaller donations. It is easier to address the money flaw than the flaw of the disproportionate role played by charisma in influencing voters.

but restricting the money to be spent on them, or restricting who can spend or how much, or excluding foreigners from spending money, etc., does nothing to correct any of the flaws.

It does if, as I contend, the money is the largest problem (or is any portion of the problem, really) with the election system.

Vast regimes of rules already restrict the spending and have only made the elections worse, not better.

It would be fine if somehow each individual could be given the same input as any other individual

I am glad that you agree with me that all private money should be removed from our elections.

That would leave vast inequities remaining which allow some individuals to have much more input/influence than others.

To make sure all individuals have the same input (in electing candidates), much more is needed: You also have to eliminate any public money and any publishing or broadcasting or other communications by which the voters are influenced. Including private conversations between neighbors where one neighbor might influence another. All communication has to be prohibited in which there would be any political topics discussed, because these could influence how people vote.

Communications which can influence voters are not equal among everyone. Some charismatic speakers get invited to speak and influence thousands of listeners, while those having no charisma are not given any such platform. And some writers cannot get anything published, while others easily get themselves published because of their status. This is unequal power to influence voters, so that not everyone's voice is equal to everyone else's.

Ideally it would be fine if everyone's voice or input could be made equal to everyone else's. But just eliminating money contributions to candidates would not correct this inequality of people to influence voters. Extremely tight controls would have to be imposed onto all speech and publishing and broadcasting, far beyond anything now envisioned. It's not sufficient to target only campaign contributions, because this is only a tiny fraction of the total propaganda influence on voters. If you can't correct ALL (or 90%) of the inequalities of influence, it's better to correct none and to let everyone operate freely without restriction as long as they don't commit criminal acts like fraud.

I am the poor sap who will bear the brunt of that influence, . . .

Only in the sense that there are plenty of poor saps bearing the brunt of YOUR influence, i.e., the influence of those you voted for and their supporters and any cause you promoted.

I.e. the influence of the governed, who are the only ones who should matter in a democratic society.

The governed are better off if everyone in the world is left free to influence them and anyone else they want to influence, and if no power-wielding authority tries to fence us off into separate groups and dictate to us who is allowed to influence whom, or who "should matter" and who should not. Everyone "should matter" in any society.

You're also a manipulator in the system,

But it is a system that I am a part of, and therefore have a vested interest in manipulating in a positive way.

You're just as much a negative threat to others in the system as a foreigner. You want your way and are just as likely to step on others as a foreigner is likely to.

That you want to dictate who is allowed to "influence" whom and want to exclude some as not "integral" or as "unnecessary" shows that your program is likely a threat to others who are a part of the system. Just because you're in that system doesn't ensure that you would manipulate it toward what's better for the country or others in the system. Your promise to be only "positive" is no different than that of a tyrant who asks us to trust him.

It is impossible to distinguish which influences should be allowed and which ones not. Any laws trying to do this can only give more power to those who know how to circumvent the rules, especially those with more power and wealth. They will never be stopped from exerting the influence they wish on voters. It's more equitable if everyone is allowed to freely exert any influence they wish, as long as basic crimes like fraud are prevented.

(Putting limits on how large a "donation" can be has a rationale to it. But such rules are easily circumvented and thus probably more harm than good, and also such rules have nothing to do with excluding foreigners.)

exerting your influence in combination with others you're allied with -- you've stepped on plenty of poor saps out their who didn't agree with you and have to bear the brunt of your influence. Everyone gets stepped on and bears the brunt of someone else's influence, AND everyone is stepping on someone else and exerting influence that others have to pay for.

That is the give and take of living within the system. I might get stepped on, but I also might do a little stepping myself. Regardless, I still have to live within that system, and rub shoulders with the stepped on, . . .

Many foreigners do also. Those who don't are not the ones who want an influence. The ones wanting to influence our elections are those who have interaction with our system and are impacted by it and have a legitimate interest in the outcome, which is mostly to produce a positive outcome beneficial to the country.

. . . so it behooves me to make sure that I am being extremely cautious with any stepping I do. A foreigner who is allowed undue influence in that system will not get stepped on themselves, but can step on those within the system with impunity.

No they cannot. You continue to speak of imaginary cases, or unidentified cases that have no meaning. You still give no concrete example of how foreigners can do any damage to the country as a result of influencing elections.

Of course you can propose examples of a crime a foreigner might commit, like something fraudulent, but whatever it is, it's just as criminal if a citizen does it and so is not about any need to exclude foreigners per se from having an influence, but is about making some criminal behaviors illegal, so they are prevented regardless whether it's a citizen or a foreigner who does it.

There is no foreign influence, or even hypothetical foreign influence, which you have to bear the brunt of (or would have to) which is not equaled by a DOMESTIC influence doing the same.

The point you seem to be missing is that the domestic influence is necessary in a democratic society. There is no reason to make things worse by introducing even more possible negative influence from foreigners on that society.

It's not about "introducing" anything. Rather, it's about not crusading needlessly and pointlessly against a so-called foreign "influence" on elections, imagining that there is a special threat posed by such influence. There is necessarily some foreign influence anyway, despite any crusade against it, plus there are multiple influences on us from MANY sources, not just political ads, and all these influences cannot be divided into pieces and categorized as domestic vs. foreign in order to ban the latter as alien or not "integral" and thus a threat to us. That perception of alien influences is only paranoia and xenophobia. The many influences exist, but you can't prove that some of them are from alien insidious evil sources which we must suppress in order to protect ourselves from them.

Rather we need to allow all the influences out there and quit pretending that we can control them and categorize some of them as alien or insidious based on some artificial distinction between "foreign" and "domestic" influence, with only the latter to be allowed. It's not true that our citizenry needs to be shielded against this alien influence. It is mostly paranoia to see the foreign influence as an insidious threat.

We are misinterpreting some possibly criminal acts which have happened, from some foreign sources, which can easily be made illegal, or are illegal, without any need to make the "foreign" per se illegal just because it's foreign. If it's criminal, then address it as something criminal no matter whether it came from a foreign or a domestic source. Make only the criminal behavior per se illegal without obsessing on whether it was foreign in origin.

You're not giving any example of it -- not even a HYPOTHETICAL example.

I thought I was discussing this topic with a reasonable person who is passingly acquainted with the history of human societies. If you are not such a person, we might as well end this discussion now. Pick up any comprehensive history book that is handy, it will be replete with examples of human societies doing incredibly bad things to foreign human societies.

Yes, criminal acts which are just as wrong if they had been done by citizens. Make it illegal to plunder and ravage and pillage property and murder and rape and so on, whether it's a foreigner or a citizen doing it. Are you saying it's OK for citizens to rape and rampage and destroy towns, and this should be made illegal only if FOREIGNERS do it?

If at that point, you still want to pretend that foreigners always have our best interests at heart, we are done.

Many don't have "our best interests at heart," regardless whether they are foreigners or citizens.

You need to figure out what "CRIMINAL" means. You have given no example of an act which is bad for the country only if FOREIGNERS do it but OK if citizens do it. Influencing voters is not a criminal or destructive act, whether foreigners or citizens do it. It should not be illegal for ANYONE to try to influence voters, as long as the particular act is not otherwise a crime.

Now why can't you offer at least a HYPOTHETICAL example of how a foreign country would do harm to the U.S. by contributing to a U.S. candidate?

I don't need a hypothetical example. I have the example of the entirety of human history on my side.

Within that history there should be at least one example you can cite. If there were such an example you would have given it. All you have is xenophobia on your side.

Your supposition is that it does no harm. Unfortunately, you are incorrect in supposing that. I submit the following evidence in support of my position that it does do harm:

President Donald J. Trump

Sorry, I just won, you can take your toys and go home now.

So you admit that you can give no example of how foreign influence can do harm, except this one.

Incorrect. That is just the most recent and relevant example, it is the only one I need.

That you can't do any better than this is good evidence that there is no harm to our elections posed by foreign influence. If there were really any such threat to the country, you could give a better example of it than just the impulsive outburst "President Donald Trump!"

That someone thinks the "wrong" candidate got elected has nothing to do with foreign influence, or that "harm" was done, because in EVERY election the "wrong" candidate wins (according to those on the losing side), and so there is no correlation between foreign influence and the "wrong" candidate getting elected, as this outcome always happens in every election, even when there is no foreign influence.

Which can be just as easily refuted by the following evidence that the Russian aid which got Trump elected did a net benefit:

Private Citizen Hillary Clinton.

While not necessarily a bad thing, it is far from a net benefit. At the very least, the mere possibility that Russia influenced the 2016 election in favor of Trump has thrown our political climate into disarray.

One mans "disarray" is another man's Reformation. The losing side in any election thinks the political climate goes into "disarray" after their guy lost (or the "bad guy" won), and yet usually it had nothing to do with any foreign influence. The "disarray" the losing side laments in any election will always happen after every election, regardless whether there was foreign influence.

You cannot define the welfare of the country to be that your candidate wins. Your definition of "disarray" and "harm" cannot simply be that the outcome of the election was not the one you wanted. You are demanding laws making it a crime for your candidate to lose -- or the other side to win, and calling this crime "foreign influence" in order to demonize the side you opposed.

That your "President Donald J. Trump" evidence is defective is obvious from the fact that even though most Trumpsters probably agree that "foreign influence" in elections should be illegal, still they resoundly reject this evidence of yours. Your "evidence" isn't worth much if it's rejected by half the country, most of whom even agree with the conclusion you falsely draw from it.

The ultimate fallout from that mere possibility has yet to be realized, please stay tuned to the clusterfuck that our politics have become as a result.

What "our politics have become" (including any bad stuff) is due to a million other factors than any foreign influence,

One piece of brainless non-evidence is as good as another.

If you want to characterize your evidence as "brainless", that is fine by me. My evidence, however, was spot on.

It is brainless to argue that your candidate losing is "evidence" that something criminal must have happened, or something harmful that must be made illegal. If the losing side in any election can claim the election must have been stolen because their guy lost, due to an influence that must be made illegal, then EVERY election is invalidated and EVERYthing that influenced any election should be made illegal.

Every election has losers who say it was wrong that their guy lost. If that's all the "evidence" you can offer -- that your guy lost (or the bad guy won) -- and so whatever caused that has to be made illegal, then you are essentially saying that EVERY election is illegal due to harmful influences, and no election has ever been valid.

That's why your evidence is "brainless" -- just that Trump won is your only complaint, and whatever caused this has to be made illegal. Any losing side in any election could say the same and demand that everything that influenced those voters has to be made illegal.

Oh wait, you don't get to take your toys, I was able to use money from foreign sources to buy enough influence to enact laws that say you lost the argument, so I get to keep your toys. And, by the way, that home that you used to have, I took money from another foreign source, so now I have to pay them back by granting them the land you used to live on, you know, imminent domain and all that. But hey, you will have to pay less in taxes, so what are you complaining about?

The only thing "imminent" is your inability to give a hypothetical example that makes any sense or has a connection to the real world.

Once again, I don't need a hypothetical, I have the history of the real world on my side.

But the only "history" you're citing is that in every election the "wrong" candidate won (Trump being only one example of it), and from this you're demanding that everything which influenced an election (where the "wrong" candidate won, which is every election) should be made illegal. You're giving Trump as a case in point, but the same is true for every election. And you're not giving any reason why only foreign influence must be made illegal, but why ANY influence on voters must be made illegal, because in every election there is influence which helps to elect the "wrong" candidate.

Your abhorrence against Trump is not a special case -- everyone else whose candidate ever lost has the same complaint you have, i.e., that the "wrong" candidate won, so they too can demand that anything which influenced those voters must be made illegal, like you're demanding in this case.


Corporate America serves consumers better because of campaign contributions.

I will give another meaningful hypothetical (or perhaps real) example:

Most economists know that OUTSOURCING is really good for the economy, despite the widespread misperception by idiots that it hurts the economy.

Just because something is good for the economy (debatable with outsourcing) or a company's bottom line, does not make it a good thing.

Yes it's good if it makes consumers better off, i.e., increases their standard of living, as outsourcing does because of the improved production. A higher standard of living has to be a good thing. There is no way to judge a company's performance by any other standard than that of serving consumers and making them better off (plus of course profiting from it), which is what outsourcing does (except in rare cases when it was a mistake and is unprofitable for the company).

But the mindless masses mostly don't understand this and are inspired by demagogues like Trump and Sanders to hate the companies for engaging in outsourcing, even though it makes the people better off. So it's good that companies pay politicians, like contributing to their campaigns, to get them to listen to the facts and the economic realities rather than caving in to the demagogues like Sanders and Trump.

The outsourcing is known by many intelligent citizens to be a benefit to them, but their only voice, or hope to persuade the politicians, is the money these receive from the companies, which motivates the politicians to follow what is practical instead of giving in to the mob-pleasing demagogues like Trump and Sanders.

So the result of these contributions is a higher standard of living for the population in general, despite the anti-free-market demagoguery of Trump and Sanders and others. These demagogues have to be offset by something, and there is no rabble-rousing crusading demagogue-led hate group helping to repel the emotionalism of the Trump and Sanders economic-nationalism fanatics. So it's only these money contributions which can play the role of serving the interests of the whole population, i.e., all the consumers, who benefit from companies serving the consumer demand rather than preserving uncompetitive "jobs" just for the sake of jobs.

So this is a clear-cut example how money in the campaigns benefits the whole country. There are millions of Americans who wish there was some way to tell companies to do (or keep doing) what's good for consumers, but there is a band-wagon fanatic anti-capitalistic trade-bashing mob out there which is difficult to fight, because anyone who tells the truth about this is censored by the press and is not allowed to tell the simple truth that the function of companies is to serve consumers rather than to provide jobs or incomes in order to create demand (e.g. Henry Ford).

This message, that the function of business is to serve consumers rather than provide jobs, which is the truth, is not allowed to be presented -- other than by companies who privately tell the cold truth to some of the decision-makers and beg them to resist the screaming mob of fanatics. These fanatics are similar to the loud Luddites 200 years ago who demonized anyone who put consumers, or the good of the whole society, ahead of jobs and incomes to workers. It is difficult to deal with them in open debate, because of the mob-mentality phenomenon, which can't understand that the production is the end while the labor is only a means to the end, and yet the decision-maker has to recognize this at some point and do what's right for consumers, despite the "jobs" rhetoric.

So campaign contributions by companies serve a legitimate role as the last escape from the mob-mentality driving the labor ideologues who make "jobs" the end and the employers a means to this end, rather than a means to serving consumers.

This extends to that of helping some companies recruit or retain immigrant workers (documented and undocumented), who are vital to the economy, who also are the target of demagogues and fanatics who are obsessed with "jobs! jobs! jobs!" instead of what's best for 300 million consumers and the whole country.

If such companies had to give in to the screaming labor fanatic mob, our standard of living would decline, with the resulting price increases due to labor shortages. Actually it does decline partly from what it could be if companies were totally free to hire cheap labor. For the sake of our country, we can only hope that Trump is unsuccessful in his crusade to punish these companies. Taking away their leverage from the campaign contributions would hurt these companies and all consumers and result in a lower standard of living.

Outsourcing can be terrible for customer service, . . .

If this is a reference to language barriers in communicating, it's a problem which companies have every incentive to fix, and are fixing.

The main result of outsourcing is lower-cost production = more workers = more production = more supply = lower prices. You never make customers better off by imposing artificially-higher costs onto the companies. Outsourcing is mostly about lower cost of production = better for everyone.

One form of customer service, that of tech support, or "help" online with accounts or subscriptions to a service, etc., has improved very much over the years, and most problems are dealt with by means of instant "chat" sessions which are very efficient. The normal business incentives have driven companies to improve this continually.

. . . and it can be devastating for local economies . . .

It's devastating only to the uncompetitive sectors. The economy which is uncompetitive needs to improve its performance, not promote uncompetitive "jobs" which only increases costs.

. . . that were previously benefiting from those jobs.

The only jobs lost which someone had benefited from were uncompetitive jobs which raised the cost of production = higher prices and lower supply. It's true that a few uncompetitive workers benefit from uncompetitive jobs, but all consumers are made worse off by them, and any company that makes consumers worse off is making the world a worse place, not better. Phony "jobs" just for the sake of jobs make the world worse, not better, because of the high cost of those jobs and the resulting lower production for consumer benefit.

The point here is that allowing all the campaign contributions and influences on the candidates, from whatever source, helps to benefit 300 million consumers, the entire country, which results from letting the companies produce at lower cost, including lower-cost labor, so that, with their motivation based on profit plus their influence on decision-makers, they can persuade these to allow the competitive marketplace to do its job of serving consumers.

Thus, allowing maximum influence on them, with maximum participants and contributors, ends up producing the most desirable outcome for everyone rather than only for a high-profile special-interest mob of loud fanatics who are a minority of the population but are driven by charismatic demagogues, like Trump and Sanders and Thom Hartmann and Pat Buchanan and Chuck Harder and Ross Perot (in 1992) etc., who pander to them and to the public on talk shows which don't allow an objective debate on the benefits of consumers being served in the competitive market. This rational debate loses out in the sensationalism and crowd-pleasing clamor of the charismatic demagoguery.

A real debate gets swept aside by the "jobs! jobs! jobs!" babble which always wins out in the brainless emotionalism of the preaching and demagoguery of these ideologues. The real debate also gets swept aside in the immigrant labor debate, where the consumers are sacrificed in favor of the clamor to deport "illegal alien" workers and thus drive up prices.


More competition = lower cost of production (including labor cost) = good for all consumers.

The basic facts of economics should come into consideration at some point, and not only the emotionalism of the "JOBS! JOBS! JOBS!" nonsense.

Most voters are swept up in the shallow anti-employer pro-Labor debates, so that the pro-consumer benefits from cheap labor are never considered but are scoffed at and sneered at by the demagogues who score cheap points by their employer-bashing rhetoric.

So with maximum allowance for contributions and influence on the politicians, we gain a chance for pragmatism and objective truth to play a role in the decisions, rather than only the mob-pleasing "jobs! jobs! jobs!" demagoguery of both the Right- and Left-wing crusaders, which we will always keep getting no matter what. But it's reasonable to allow cold truth to enter the picture at some point, for the good of 300 million consumers, who are the whole country and should get priority.

The pseudo-patriotic employer-bashing economic nationalists and protectionists and their disciples have plenty of opportunity to preach their mindless slogans and pressure the politicians to drive up labor cost at the expense of 300 million consumers and thus suppress the overall living standard in favor of their pro-labor ideology.

It's reasonable to offset that mindlessness by allowing the avenue of campaign contributions to promote a competitive economy rather than the crybaby economics of picking winners-and-losers and protecting the uncompetitive and those who whine the loudest -- to at least allow the chance for a market-demand system where businesses perform their real function of serving consumers. It costs the taxpayers nothing and makes 300 million consumers better off because of the resulting higher performance by companies.

Consumers are served not only by domestic pro-market and pro-trade policies, promoted by U.S. corporations which donate to candidates, but also by pro-immigrant policies, which might be supported by some foreign sources as well as by U.S. business interests in need of cheaper labor. So all the support to candidates, both foreign and domestic, increases the chance that the whole U.S. population of 300+ million consumers will be best served rather than the narrow interests of certain labor and narrow business interests seeking favored treatment at the expense of everyone else.

So all should be free to participate and contribute and try to influence the decision-makers, and this combination of them all, with maximum participation, has the best chance of overcoming pressure from individual fragmented interest groups in favor of serving ALL the country.

 

[KeepTalking]

small talk:



Y'ain't seen nothin' yet!

That's nice. I did kind of glance at this wall, and the continuation post. I have absolutely no intention to attempt to push through them. I don't know of a wrecking ball large enough to knock those walls down to chunks that I would want to deal with. Enjoy your thread masturbatory exercise, I'm out.

 

[fromderinside]

Apparently fair means that if 10 million poor people can raise 10 million dollars it becomes fair for one rich person to contribute 10 million dollars against their funded position. Really?

Imagine the damping needed to make the 10 million voices appear equal to one voice.

 

[untermensche]

This belongs in the religion section.

Somebody was taught as a very young child that capitalism has some connection to morality and justice and that person never grew up and never actually looked at so-called capitalism in the real world.

 

[steve_bank]

Putin is a product of the Soviet Union and the Cold War , and blames the USA for the fall of Soviet communism.

Our open liberal democracy is wide open to foreign manipulation. What Russia did would be harshly punished in Russia and China. It could not happen.

In many ways our system is fragile relying on the vast majority without coercion not fucking with things.

I expect most do not realize the foundations of our daily social stability. Destroy our social consensus and we fall apart. That is the Russian goal, a bigger threat than NK nukes.

Trump by design or ignorance is enhancing Russia.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Is it in Russia's interest for the U.S. to implode? Is that what Russians want?

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

Because it's in the interests of the Russian government if the US government and its society at large implodes.

That's mostly paranoia. Do you want governments of other countries or their society to implode?

But if it can be shown that the Russian (or other) government engaged in criminal acts that threaten the U.S., by computer hacking or whatever, maybe there should be a procedure to bar that particular state or its citizens from some acts, like contributing to U.S. candidates or running ads etc. to influence elections. So some rules aimed at barring only such bad guys might serve a practical purpose. -- But not all foreigners.

No one yet has given any concrete example of how a foreign entity can do harm to the U.S. by trying to influence U.S. elections, other than perhaps some forms of criminal behavior which are just as wrong if a U.S. citizen did the same thing.

And so the only need is to make any such behavior illegal and enforce the laws against any violators, whether they are citizens or foreigners. But there's no reason why a foreigner per se should be prohibited from contributing in the same way a citizen may contribute to a candidate or run a political ad, etc.

Rather, the U.S. is better off to let all the players participate and to gain some revenue by taxing those contributions or ads or whatever.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

No concrete example, only paranoia.

For me, it's real simple. I want my politician working for my interests, not a foreign interest.

Is a foreign interest automatically contrary to your interest? No one so far has given a specific example of it.

Except me. I'll give 2 examples, which I've already given. They are both hypothetical, but quite possible.

example 1: Some Mexicans donate to a U.S. candidate, and he promises to introduce a bill which would give a $1000 subsidy to every Mexican family, paid by U.S. taxpayers. This would be a bad bill which Americans would want defeated.

In any real situation, such a bill would have absolutely no chance of passing. The candidate would certainly lose the election if the deal with the Mexican donors became known. But even if it should be kept secret somehow, such a bill could never pass.


example 2: Some Cubans, or the Cuban government, donate to a U.S. candidate who promises to promote an end to the Cuban embargo. This policy would be good for the U.S., as more trade is better, including free trade with Cuba, and ending the embargo which hurts many Americans.

And of course there's plenty of opportunity for Americans and Cubans to oppose ending the embargo, by contributing to candidates who would keep the embargo. So what's the problem with the foreign contributions?

Ending the embargo would be in the interest of Cubans, but also Americans. The U.S. interests are not necessarily in conflict with those of another country.


Now how about giving an example where it would harm U.S. interests to allow foreigners to contribute to U.S. candidates, or to run ads to influence a U.S. election.

Of course you can name some kind of criminal act which would hurt Americans, or the election, but that is already illegal, and so any criminal acts should be prevented no matter who commits them, whether by a foreigner or a U.S. citizen. So the only need is for a law to prevent such criminal behavior, no matter by whom. No need for a law banning foreigners from influencing U.S. elections.

It's clear to me that if the Russian intervention hadn't been exposed, that Trump would have eliminated the sanctions on Russia.

No, he could not do that without the Congress approving it. Maybe the sanctions should be softened or eliminated. But it could not happen unless the Congress decides to do it. There's no reason to think the Congress would remove sanctions if there's a need for them to continue.

We should not make "sanctions on Russia" into a religion. If there's a need for such sanctions, there's no reason to think the Congress would not insist on imposing them and pressuring the Administration to carry them out.

Why don't you explain which of the sanctions you think are really important and how the U.S. is threatened if they are not imposed and enforced.

It sounds more like "sanctions on Russia" are some kind of nationalistic war-cry rather than something vitally necessary to the U.S. But if there is substance to it, to prevent the Russians from doing something bad, or to punish them for past bad behavior, then the Congress and the President have the incentive to carry them out. There's no reason to believe they would abandon the sanctions if they are really necessary. The President alone cannot cancel the sanctions.

He probably would have allowed the weakening of Nato which could have led to WW3 . . .

No, he would not have done that. Trump has many advisers around him who will pressure him to keep NATO strong. And he doesn't want to weaken NATO anyway, but is only trying to pressure other member nations to carry out their NATO obligations, which is legitimate.

. . . which could have led to WW3 as Russia seems to want to expand.

No, Russia is not getting ready to invade Estonia. Anything like that could not happen without a strong U.S. response to prevent it, and Trump would do what was necessary. And his advisers and others would pressure him to respond militarily to stop it.

It is wacko nonsense to suggest that Russians are pressuring Trump to let them invade those countries, and that he owes them this because they got him elected. This is bone-headed paranoia.

 

[untermensche]

What is the harm if the president works for the interests of the Russian government?

What is the harm if the president is a Russian agent?