US Election 2020

[pErvinalia]

Trump supporters. As long as the target is that nasty woman.

[Cunt]

Are we wrong about that? Do tell.

You are hilariously irrelevant.

[Forty Two]

If a foreign national reveals accurate, albeit damaging, information, then that is a good thing. That's what I was talking about. But you knew that.

You've piqued my curiosity. Who says that's a good thing?

I just did. You're free to opine the opposite. Do you?

Generally speaking, if Trump, for example ,were revealed by Carlos Slim to have hired Mexican hookers on a trip to Mexico City for government business, I would think it's a good thing that it was revealed. Wouldn't you? Getting accurate information about candidates and officials is generally good, isn't it, even if it is damaging to them?

[Forty Two]

everyone is sure that I'm a reincarnation of a previous forum member who posted here for 10+years or more

Are we wrong about that? Do tell.

I'm a paid Russian agent now.

[Forty Two]

If a foreign national reveals accurate, albeit damaging, information, then that is a good thing. That's what I was talking about. But you knew that.

I know that you said that, yes. I also know that you said considerably more, and to me that looks like a defense of Russian interference in the US election.

Only if you ignore everything else I wrote. I also said that Russian hacking, attempts to impact vote tallies. That kind of thing, is criminal. That kind of interference is not a good thing.

But, public comment on candidates and revealing accurate information is not "interference" with an election. If it were, then we would have a situation where people with information that Trump is traitor or a Russian Manchurian candidate would have to keep silent about it, because they happen to be non-American.

If a Russian "oligarch" had information that Trump really was Putin's bottom bitch and is a Russian asset, then wouldn't you want him to disclose that information? Shouldn't the public know about it?

It certainly isn't a condemnation of their actions;

It depends on the action. I don't condemn everything Russians do. Do you?

rather the contrary. In the bolded quotes above you are without doubt questioning the idea that there was something bad or harmful about Russia's actions.

Which actions? Be specific. Which actions?

While nothing prevented you from answering your own questions, I think you've already done so in that and previous posts. Correct me if I'm wrong:

Q: 'How they are evil and immoral?'

A: They are neither evil nor immoral. [Russia] has done a service to America.

I never said they did a "service to America."

Q: 'Would the [Russians] possibly have committed a crime? What crime?'

Quite possibly hacking and other computer crimes. That wold be criminal, and possibly an act of war - as I have said more than once.

A: They committed no crime.

That we don't know. You need to be specific as to who, and what action you are claiming is criminal. Vague references to "interference" or "collusion" is just political claptrap.

While I wouldn't phrase it the way you did ('evil, criminal, immoral'), I believe that the actions of the Russian government were harmful to the free function of democracy in the United States. They laid their fat thumb on the scale, if you will.

Set forth exactly what you think has been demonstrated that the Russian government did. With specificity.

What did I phrase as "evil, criminal, immoral?"

It's been a while since I pointed this out, but I'll do it again: There is deep irony in this. The United States has been doing much worse than that to other countries for over a century, and in the 2016 presidential primaries and presidential election it got a minor dose of its own medicine. I think such an anti-democratic action is neither acceptable nor excusable, whether the US does it to other countries or Russia does it to the US.

What's "it?" Doesn't it depend what "it" is? Surely, people can comment on elections, can't they? Governments do it all the time.

Should Australian nationals have the right to post memes on social media relative to candidates in the Brazilian elections? What about the Australian government? If there was a candidate in Brazil who was running who said "I will bring a new day of love and understanding between Brazil and Australia and I support a free trade agreement with Australia to bring our countries together," and the other candidate said "I am going to go to war with Australia," would Australian nationals have the right to express a preference? Post memes mocking the war candidate? And would Ozzie government be doing something wrong if it published messages on social media supporting peace and free trade with Brazil?

Naturally, if they hack the Brazilian computers and steal data, that's a crime and possibly an act of war. However, that's also world's different than "colluding with a candidate to reveal dirt on the candidate."

Do you not see the distinctions?

If the war candidate in my example was engaged in shady activities - and the Ozzies found out about it and leaked it to Wikleaks or the Sao Paulo Times, wouldn't that be good? Or would it be bad? Isn't it possible that the manner in which the information was found was bad, but the revelation good? - that was the logic of the Pentagon Papers decision in the US -- someone leaked classified information from the Pentagon revealing a lot of crummy stuff about the Vietnam War -- the New York Times published it, and won the case the government brought relative to the classified information. It was fine for the New York Times to publish stolen classified information. They didn't get it improperly - it was given to them. But, the person that gave it to them committed an offense by doing so.

[Hermit]

everyone is sure that I'm a reincarnation of a previous forum member who posted here for 10+years or more

Are we wrong about that? Do tell.

I'm a paid Russian agent now.

And collecting twice the money by having a sock account on their payroll, you crafty fellow, you.

[Joe]

If a foreign national reveals accurate, albeit damaging, information, then that is a good thing. That's what I was talking about. But you knew that.

You've piqued my curiosity. Who says that's a good thing?

I just did. You're free to opine the opposite. Do you?

Generally speaking, if Trump, for example ,were revealed by Carlos Slim to have hired Mexican hookers on a trip to Mexico City for government business, I would think it's a good thing that it was revealed. Wouldn't you? Getting accurate information about candidates and officials is generally good, isn't it, even if it is damaging to them?

Ah, good, I doubted someone serious was propounding such a poorly thought out sentiment, but these are strange times.

I see you are already backpedaling from your blanket statement. Perhaps you've realized on reflection that it wouldn't be good for such information to be revealed if it compromised the national security of our country, or interfered in the proper functioning of it's institutions.

Yes?

[JimC]

everyone is sure that I'm a reincarnation of a previous forum member who posted here for 10+years or more

Are we wrong about that? Do tell.

I'm a paid Russian agent now.

And collecting twice the money by having a sock account on their payroll, you crafty fellow, you.

[L'Emmerdeur]

... I also know that you said considerably more, and to me that looks like a defense of Russian interference in the US election.

Only if you ignore everything else I wrote. I also said that Russian hacking, attempts to impact vote tallies. That kind of thing, is criminal. That kind of interference is not a good thing.

First, you might as well go back to claiming that the Democrats weren't hacked, or if they were, it wasn't the Russians. This 'attempted hacking' schtick is perhaps even more ridiculous. At least you've got some voices on your side (albeit complete shitheads) with the 'No hack, LEAK!' line of nonsense. Trying to straddle from the world of conspiracy theorist gabbling and the world of accepted fact is rarely a workable tactic.

This whole line of discussion got its start because you couldn't help bringing up the 2016 election in this post, where you ask 'Can anyone explain what the Russians did wrong in helping Stein and Sanders?' Again, you didn't bother to answer the question yourself, but here's your opportunity. Was it wrong for the Russian to interfere in the US election by helping Trump, Sanders, and Stein, as well as attacking Clinton? You already know my opinion, but apparently my understanding of your opinion is faulty.

I can say definitively that if somebody makes a statement to the effect that 'X's action involving Y was wrong,' and somebody else comes along and says, 'No, there was nothing wrong with X's action, in fact X did a service to Y' then the second person is defending X's action. The second person can claim they aren't defending X's action all they want, but it doesn't change reality.

But, public comment on candidates and revealing accurate information is not "interference" with an election. If it were, then we would have a situation where people with information that Trump is traitor or a Russian Manchurian candidate would have to keep silent about it, because they happen to be non-American.

Impersonating Americans and disseminating propaganda and divisive commentary with the primary intention of assisting one candidate and denigrating the other is interference, in my book. Stealing information that can be used to the detriment of one candidate and distributing it via proxy while stealing information that is possibly detrimental to the other candidate and keeping it under wraps is interference as well.

The Russians were not doing the US any 'service,' they were promoting Putin's favoured candidate, and doing their best to harm the prospects of the candidate he bears a marked animosity for. It looks like just because you happen to share Putin's animosity, you choose to believe they did nothing wrong.

If a Russian "oligarch" had information that Trump really was Putin's bottom bitch and is a Russian asset, then wouldn't you want him to disclose that information? Shouldn't the public know about it?

You persist in equivocating. The Russians acted covertly; they chose surreptitious means to achieve their ends, interfering with an election. They didn't present any evidence in a straight-forward manner, and none of what they did reveal even came close to the level of treachery in your imaginary scenario. That's not the same thing as a Russian coming forward with relevant evidence and presenting it honestly.

It certainly isn't a condemnation of their actions;

It depends on the action. I don't condemn everything Russians do. Do you?

The actions we've been discussing. You defend those actions rather than condemning them.

rather the contrary. In the bolded quotes above you are without doubt questioning the idea that there was something bad or harmful about Russia's actions.

Which actions? Be specific. Which actions?

What actions have we been discussing, Forty Two? Perhaps you can search your mind and come up with an honest response.

I never said they did a "service to America."

Right. You claimed that the Russian stand-in 'Mexicans' in your fairy tale did 'a service to America there, getting information out that is relevant.'

Quite possibly hacking and other computer crimes. That wold be criminal, and possibly an act of war - as I have said more than once.

However, you don't believe they committed any crime, do you?

[Scot Dutchy]

Being a Russian troll he has to defend them.

[Forty Two]

... I also know that you said considerably more, and to me that looks like a defense of Russian interference in the US election.

Only if you ignore everything else I wrote. I also said that Russian hacking, attempts to impact vote tallies. That kind of thing, is criminal. That kind of interference is not a good thing.

First, you might as well go back to claiming that the Democrats weren't hacked, or if they were, it wasn't the Russians.

I never claimed that. I wanted to see evidence.

This 'attempted hacking' schtick is perhaps even more ridiculous. At least you've got some voices on your side (albeit complete shitheads) with the 'No hack, LEAK!' line of nonsense. Trying to straddle from the world of conspiracy theorist gabbling and the world of accepted fact is rarely a workable tactic.

There is as much "evidence" made public about a leak as there is about a hack. You've not seen evidence, have you?

This whole line of discussion got its start because you couldn't help bringing up the 2016 election in this post, where you ask 'Can anyone explain what the Russians did wrong in helping Stein and Sanders?' Again, you didn't bother to answer the question yourself, but here's your opportunity. Was it wrong for the Russian to interfere in the US election by helping Trump, Sanders, and Stein, as well as attacking Clinton? You already know my opinion, but apparently my understanding of your opinion is faulty.

Yes, by hacking, assuming the Russian government hacked or caused the hacking to be done, and yes, hackers hacking privately, without government involvement, is also wrong. No, posting internet ads and memes is not wrong - not in the least - even if their intent was to help one particular candidate. I can't imagine that was unclear to you.

Interference, like collusion, is a mushy, vague term - it all depends what was done that is alleged to constitute interference or collusion.

Impersonating Americans and disseminating propaganda

Impersonating foreign persons, and disseminating information (propaganda or otherwise) doesn't seem like something I want governments to have the power to stop. One of the beauties of the internet has always been the anonymity -- and the ability to identify as whatever you want. I don't see what could possibly be illegal about me creating an account and saying I'm French, and posting insulting memes against Marine Le Pen in the run up to the French election. Do you?

and divisive commentary

Divisive commentary is free speech. One party's divisive commentary is another party's call for unity. There is nothing illegal about commenting in a way that calls for division. People have a right to want something other than unity. If I want to call for secession from the union, that's about as divisive as one can get - but, I think I have a right to be that divisive. And, if an Australian, Mexican or Russian wants the American southwest to secede and join Mexico, because they say they think Mexico got a raw deal in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, don't they have a right to be that divisive?

with the primary intention of assisting one candidate and denigrating the other is interference, in my book.

So, no foreign person (non-American) should have any right to comment on politics if they have the "primary intention" to assist one candidate? That's properly illegal in your book? What about the Oz elections? What if I get on Facebook and start posting nasty memes against one Oz candidate, and I announce my primary intention is to help the other candidate win? Am I illegally interfering with the Oz election?

And your view is that Americans can interfere that way in American elections, and Ozzies can interfere with Ozzie elections that way, but Indonesians and Mexicans cannot say those same things?

And what about "secondary intention." What if one's primary intent is to make one's views known to the world, and the secondary intent is to interfere? Then they are within the law? And, what if there is no intent to "interfere" but there is an intent to "make views known to the world?

Do you see how your position is unworkable in the real world, and is a guarantee of arbitrary and capricious enforcement?

Stealing information that can be used to the detriment of one candidate and distributing it via proxy while stealing information that is possibly detrimental to the other candidate and keeping it under wraps is interference as well.

Oh, o.k. - well, stealing is wrong. That's different than publishing views, of course. That's the distinction I'm making. As I said, the person who committed a crime by taking information and revealing it to the New York Times committed a crime and should have been prosecuted. The New York Times didn't do anything wrong, though, in publishing it. A la Pentagon Papers. Yet, that interfered the fuck out of American politics. What if the information was dropped off at the Times of London instead? It becomes foreign interference?

The Russians were not doing the US any 'service,'

Of course not. They aren't in the business of doing us favors, unless it helps them. My comment in that regard - and you know this - was that revealing truthful, but damaging, information about a candidate to the public is a good thing -- because the alternative - keeping it secret - means we vote not knowing the bad shit the candidate did.

they were promoting Putin's favoured candidate, and doing their best to harm the prospects of the candidate he bears a marked animosity for.

By speaking, publishing and writing. Yes. I've already addressed the hacking. The speaking, publishing and writing cannot be made unlawful. The hacking yes. If the US wants to address lawful, but undesirable, conduct of the Russian government by diplomatic and geopolitical means, fine - but, that has nothing to do with the candidate that the foreign government is supporting, does it?

Again, reverse the roles - if the Clinton camp got a call from that Russian lawyer lady and the lady said "hey, I have some serious dirt on Trump - he got blowjobs from hookers in the elevator in Moscow in 1996, and he stiffed them on payment, the cheap bastard -- and he won gambling money at a casino in Moscow and didn't declare it on his taxes..." -- if the clinton campaign said 'fuck yeah! get that info over here! Let's have a meeting and see whatcha got!" Has a wrong been committed by Clinton campaign?

It looks like just because you happen to share Putin's animosity, you choose to believe they did nothing wrong.

I have not said they did nothing wrong. I've said many times, hacking is wrong, and if they committed hacking, then that could very well, depending on the circumstances, rise to the level of an act of war. At a minimum, it's criminal. How is that "believing they did nothing wrong."

Also, lying is wrong - so they can publish lies and I think that would be wrong. But, publishing the truth is not wrong. And, publishing opinion is not wrong. Publishing lies, though, except in the context of fraud, is generally not illegal, and it's a wrong we just have deal with. I mean, if someone posts here that Trump never filed a tax return, that's false - but hardly unlawful, even if stated with the present intent to deceive.

If a Russian "oligarch" had information that Trump really was Putin's bottom bitch and is a Russian asset, then wouldn't you want him to disclose that information? Shouldn't the public know about it?

You persist in equivocating. The Russians acted covertly; they chose surreptitious means to achieve their ends, interfering with an election. They didn't present any evidence in a straight-forward manner, and none of what they did reveal even came close to the level of treachery in your imaginary scenario. That's not the same thing as a Russian coming forward with relevant evidence and presenting it honestly.

It doesn't matter - it's not an equivocation. Their acting covertly is an issue, because if they committed a crime to get the information, then that should result in a prosecution or political retaliation/action by the US. But, if the oligarch simply had information, lawfully obtained, then releasing it by whatever means - surreptitious or otherwise - is not wrong. There is no requirement that information damaging to a candidate has to be released with good intentions.

It certainly isn't a condemnation of their actions;

It depends on the action. I don't condemn everything Russians do. Do you?

The actions we've been discussing. You defend those actions rather than condemning them.

I condemn criminal actions. I condemn intentional lying. I do not condemn the posting of opinions, memes, or political statements -- even if done with bad intent.

rather the contrary. In the bolded quotes above you are without doubt questioning the idea that there was something bad or harmful about Russia's actions.

Which actions? Be specific. Which actions?

What actions have we been discussing, Forty Two? Perhaps you can search your mind and come up with an honest response.

Can't you just answer a straight question.

The actions we have been discussing are:

1. hacking to get information
2. handing that information over to third parties for publication
3. Third parties publishing that information
4. posting internet memes and opinions with the intent to support donald trump, jill stein and bernie sanders, and some occasions even against donald trump, and even if in support of Hillary Clinton.

I've made my positions clear.

1. Illegal, criminal, prosecutable, depending on how severe, possibly an act of war, if proven.
2. illegal, criminal, prosecutable, depending on how severe, possibly an act of war, if proven.
3. Legal, and if the information is truthful, then it's beneficial to the electoral process. If false, then intentionally deceptive distribution is not cricket, although still probably legal.
4. Freedom of speech, regardless of primary or secondary intent, and as much the right of a foreign person as an American -- as an American, I like to be able to freely comment on foreign elections, too, and post whatever memes I like. If it's a government engaged in a concerted action, then that's a diplomatic matter.
5. Participation by the candidate or campaign in the US -- for 1 and 2, participation could very well be criminal if there was a conspiracy and an overt act - then with 4, however, just knowing about the information and being happy that it exists or is distributed, that can't be a crime.

Would you provide your view on each of those items?

I never said they did a "service to America."

Right. You claimed that the Russian stand-in 'Mexicans' in your fairy tale did 'a service to America there, getting information out that is relevant.'

Sure, I didn't say they intended to do a service - I don't know what someone's subjective intent is - but, the release of truthful information is a good thing. That's the kind of service I was talking about. If it's something really nasty about Trump, I want foreign people to release that information. I'm not saying that justifies illegally stealing data, but if someone happens to have security footage of Trump pissing on hookers in the room Obama slept in, then I think that would be a service to us to have that released. It is a disservice to have it hidden or kept secret. Get it?

Quite possibly hacking and other computer crimes. That wold be criminal, and possibly an act of war - as I have said more than once.

However, you don't believe they committed any crime, do you?

I suspect they probably did, but I don't know. It's quite possible. Certainly not out of character, and not beyond the capacity and willingness to undertake nefarious deeds of any government of which I am aware.

I don't "believe" things, as I'm not religious. I have not seen evidence, have you?

What's your "belief?" What's your "knowledge?" on that point? What, exactly, do you base your belief on?

[Tero]

Hacking for the noble cause: destroy BIG GOVERNMENT! Government must be removed from our lives. Except from inside the uterus, they have jurisdiction there.

[Sean Hayden]

I think the anonymity of the Internet is largely a mistake.

If you're impersonating a Frenchman while lambasting French politicians I'd like to see you exposed as a fraud.

[Rum]

I sometimes think the the internet itself is a mistake. Consider the impact it has had in 25 years or so and how more or less uncontrolled - or at least unplanned it and it’s consequences have been.

If the Galaxians of this world want a half way credible conspiracy to ponder it might be that.

[Sean Hayden]

#bringbackmeasles

Dr. Hayden, MD Bacterial Neurologist