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

[Lumpenproletariat]

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?

 

[DrZoidberg]

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?

The Russians aren't accused of having ads on Facebook. They're accused of paying for users to be on Facebook, posing as Americans, and engaging in political discussions where they're spreading on-sided political propaganda. What they do is that they identify how the Facebook algorithm works and then optimise posting to make their articles trend. I also highly doubt they're doing it manually. I'm pretty sure they used bots. It's surprisingly easy to make a convincing conversational bot. People are pretty predictable.

They also tried their best to hide it. Using proxy's and such. But the FBI have some pretty clever people. So they busted the Russians.

Good luck taxing that. You'd need to tax anybody writing anything on Facebook.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Here's the kind of stuff they do. They have big propaganda teams who's job it is to create the illusion of popular movements. I'm not saying there aren't pro-Russian Ukrainians. It's just not as many as it appears. But these all just appear as regular users on-line.

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-41915295

 

[zorq]

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

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

 

[DrZoidberg]

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

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

The difference between constructive criticism and plain criticism is that plain criticism is just whining. It's made by people who don't really want things to change.

Great input, Sherlock.

 

[whichphilosophy]

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 wgate 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?

The Russians aren't accused of having ads on Facebook. They're accused of paying for users to be on Facebook, posing as Americans, and engaging in political discussions where they're spreading on-sided political propaganda. What they do is that they identify how the Facebook algorithm works and then optimise posting to make their articles trend. I also highly doubt they're doing it manually. I'm pretty sure they used bots. It's surprisingly easy to make a convincing conversational bot. People are pretty predictable.

They also tried their best to hide it. Using proxy's and such. But the FBI have some pretty clever people. So they busted the Russians.

Good luck taxing that. You'd need to tax anybody writing anything on Facebook.

They didn't bust the Russians, even if they did this. We cannot rule out entirely as anyone in Russia or elsewhere may have had the opportunity. The Special Investigation report admits any of its estimates (high confidence) could also be wrong.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The Russians aren't accused of having ads on Facebook. They're accused of paying for users to be on Facebook, posing as Americans, and engaging in political discussions where they're spreading on-sided political propaganda. What they do is that they identify how the Facebook algorithm works and then optimise posting to make their articles trend. I also highly doubt they're doing it manually. I'm pretty sure they used bots. It's surprisingly easy to make a convincing conversational bot. People are pretty predictable.

They also tried their best to hide it. Using proxy's and such. But the FBI have some pretty clever people. So they busted the Russians.

Good luck taxing that. You'd need to tax anybody writing anything on Facebook.

They didn't bust the Russians, even if they did this. The Special Investigation report admits any of its estimates could also be wrong.

Well.. that's the nature of using proxy's. It's a game where the hackers are trying to beat the investigators. But once they've tracked the traffic to Russian servers I'd say it's pretty settled. Don't you? Sure, there's doubts. But come on... this isn't exactly out of character for Putin.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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. 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.

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.

 

[barbos]

The Russians aren't accused of having ads on Facebook. They're accused of paying for users to be on Facebook, posing as Americans, and engaging in political discussions where they're spreading on-sided political propaganda. What they do is that they identify how the Facebook algorithm works and then optimise posting to make their articles trend. I also highly doubt they're doing it manually. I'm pretty sure they used bots. It's surprisingly easy to make a convincing conversational bot. People are pretty predictable.

They also tried their best to hide it. Using proxy's and such. But the FBI have some pretty clever people. So they busted the Russians.

Good luck taxing that. You'd need to tax anybody writing anything on Facebook.

They didn't bust the Russians, even if they did this. The Special Investigation report admits any of its estimates could also be wrong.

Well.. that's the nature of using proxy's. It's a game where the hackers are trying to beat the investigators. But once they've tracked the traffic to Russian servers I'd say it's pretty settled. Don't you? Sure, there's doubts. But come on... this isn't exactly out of character for Putin.

They did not do that. They found few Tor nodes in Russia and claimed "See, Russia!"

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

We have yet to see real evidence that Russia "interfered" to any significant degree. It is scare mongering and nowhere close to what America has done to other countries. Russia certainly didn't buy control of a political party like Hillary Clinton did. At worst they had a few people post things online or engaged in internet discussions, and that isn't much different than me, a Canadian telling you that you should get universal healthcare and that I like Bernie Sanders. Does that make me a "Canadian agent interfering in US elections"? Should Trump scream out against me rigging your election against him?

 

[dismal]

We have yet to see real evidence that Russia "interfered" to any significant degree. It is scare mongering and nowhere close to what America has done to other countries. Russia certainly didn't buy control of a political party like Hillary Clinton did. At worst they had a few people post things online or engaged in internet discussions, and that isn't much different than me, a Canadian telling you that you should get universal healthcare and that I like Bernie Sanders. Does that make me a "Canadian agent interfering in US elections"? Should Trump scream out against me rigging your election against him?

It's not so much "scare mongering" as it is "reality avoidance" for the left. They need a boogeyman upon which to blame their election defeats.

 

[zorq]

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

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

The difference between constructive criticism and plain criticism is that plain criticism is just whining. It's made by people who don't really want things to change.

Great input, Sherlock.

The epithet 'Sherlock' which you have given me is usually used sarcastically which implies that you feel my contribution was not constructive. Why is that?

Is it really a good thing for certain local media companies to take in money from foreign sources if the consequence is a distorted perspective of the electorate when making decisions on the course their country should take? The OP implies that a thousand dollars in Google's pocket is worth inflicting a Donald Trump presidency on a nation. I disagree.

Do you?

 

[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?

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?

 

[coloradoatheist]

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

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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

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.

 

[coloradoatheist]

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

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.

 

[Sarpedon]

Modern Christians have abandoned Christ and now worship Mammon. And they never cared about democracy. Of course they would sell it if the offer was good!

 

[scombrid]

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?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

think the tax think is not important, but on the other side is free speech that bad it needs to be removed? As Jolly pointed out there are non-Americans on this board. Should we ban them from talking about our elections?

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.

 

[coloradoatheist]

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.