pErvin wrote:Forty Two wrote:pErvin wrote:If the reports are correct, Russia aided one candidate over another. That's not illegal in international law, as far as I know, but no one is saying that it is. But that doesn't mean as a country you have to accept their meddling. You can retaliate with diplomatic measures.
They aid one candidate over another in every election.
Non sequitur. That doesn't mean you should give them a free pass to keep doing it.
Again, that depends what they are actually doing. Saying they're "aiding" a candidate is not sufficient. How, exactly? Legal means? Illegal means? What?
pErvin wrote:
That's what the intelligence reports said. Remember that main intelligence report we talked about for ages - the one that was 25 pages long, with 1/2 a page about "hacking" (which basically didn't have any real information on hacking)? That intelligence report said at the outset that Russia had a longstanding practice of attempting to influence US elections and politics, dating back many decades.
Sure, diplomatic measures can be taken, but what, if anything, is to be done depends on what they did. What are you going to do about propaganda? Articles in pravda and other publications? Stories fed to the AP and Reuters? Start a diplomatic war over that? You think the US doesn't do that all over the world? Come on....
I'm sure the US does it. What sort of logic are you employing that leads you to allow your country to be influenced by a foreign power just because your country does it to others?
This is an impossible conversation to have without specificity as to what the "influence" was that was accomplished, and what were the means used to accomplish the influence. Putin arguably "influences" American elections simply by making public statements about them during the election. If Russians are publishing negative stories about a candidate in the media, that would be an influence. If they are lobbying congressmen, that might be an influence too.
The logic, as I've been quite clear, is not that we do it, therefore it is o.k. The logic is that it's lawful to do it, and everybody does it because it's lawful. You can't stop people from behaving lawfully and having an influence in an election. If Mexicans came here from Mexico, for example, and started marching in the street carrying signs saying to vote for one candidate over another, there is literally nothing the US government can or should do about it to stop it. Now, if it were found out that the Mexican government itself was coordinating some sort of plan to effect the out come of the election, that might be another story altogether. But, we can't know unless and until it's clarified (a) who is doing "it", and (b) what is the "it" that they are doing, specifically, and (c) what are the means being used to accomplish "it."
pErvin wrote:
Faulty logic is faulty. And the allegations are far more serious than "propaganda". They attempted actual vote rigging according to the intelligence report. You know this, so why are you pretending that you don't?
Once again, we need to focus here. That's nothing to do with Kushner or Manafort. We're talking about Kushner and Manafort. I have no problem whatsoever with action being taken to stop attempted vote-rigging. However, that is not what we are talking about here, and it is not anything that was in the articles L'emmerdeur (sp?) posted and to which I responded.
pErvin wrote:
So, that's why we need more than "if the allegations are true the Russians aided one side..." -- we need to know what they did, specifically, to aid.
That's what the investigations are for. Yet you and the RWNJ brigade don't think the investigations should be happening. Cognitive dissonance, much??
I said exactly the opposite. Investigate away. So far, the investigations have reported back with exactly nothing that is attributable to Trump, Manafort, Kushner or Trump, Jr., or anyone in the Trump campaign. When they do report something back in that regard, I'll listen. Until then, if they're sure the Russians attempted to rig elections in the US, then they damn well ought to indict someone. Have they? Intelligence agencies, including the FBI, apparently know that vote rigging occurred, but haven't indicted a single person. Huh.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar
