The "foreign meddling in our elections" brouhaha

[proximity1]

(Excerpt from Politico.com : http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/paul-ryan-town-hall-trump-obamacare-233577 )

 

By Rachael Bade. 01/13/17 12:07 AM EST

 

"House Speaker Paul Ryan on Thursday night offered the fullest accounting of his own thinking on the direction of the nation since the election, even gently breaking from President-elect Donald Trump on controversial policies from Russia sanctions to Medicare reform.

 

"Ryan also said the U.S. needed to step up our game in countering Russia after the nation's interference in the election. Trump throughout the entire campaign defended Russia and cast doubt on intelligence findings alleging cyber-intrusions. His pick for secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, refused during his confirmation hearing this week to commit to continuing Russia sanctions.

 

Ryan, however, didnt hold back his scorn for Putins ploys.

 

I think we have to step up our game on Russia with respect to confronting Russia when they act like this, when they frustrate our interests, he said. I do believe they tried to affect our elections••• There is no place for that••• I do think sanctions are called for."

 

••• •••

 

_________________

 

My different view on "interference" in our elections.

 

["One man's "interference" is another's "useful information)

 

Had U.S. voters wanted to weigh the importance of Trump's real or supposed ties to interests in Russia or to its president, Vladimir Putin, or to any other Russians as factors in their decisions about the best candidate for U.S. president, is there anyone who seriously doubts or questions their right to consider such aspects? It's a virtual certainty that some voters did just that: considered Trump's personal ties to Russians--and some of them voted for Clinton while others of them voted for Trump.

 

The fact is that voters have a right to consider anything they regard as worthy of their time and attention in weighing up their voting decisions. Anything --no matter its source or the possible motives of the source(s), whether known or only guessed--is within their purview as for their decisions' criteria and bases.

 

Thus, if information bearing on the election-- as the voters see it-- comes to them from whatever source, domestic or foreign, they have a right to either accept or refuse to take that information into account as, in their sole judgment, they see fit to do. No one has a right to require a voter to reveal how or why he or she voted in a secret balloting and no one has a right to require that a voter account for his decision.

 

Thus, attempts by foreign individuals or groups to inform, advise or persuasde voters --openly or via hidden means-- are receivable or not according to the judgment of each individual voter.

 

How else could people be free to vote as they see fit?-- whether it be wisely or foolishly, from fear or in fearlessness, for sound or absurd reasons and motives.

 

Even if Vladimir Putin had avowed having stolen and leaked information for the expressed purpose of influencing voters, the voters have every right to decide whether or not to take this into account--just as they have the right to urge their fellow voters to accept or reject such an effort to influence them.

 

(ETA) All of this prior to election-day.

 

Once the ballots are cast and counted, once a result has come into view, the "rightness," the legitimacy, of the election and its results are properly confined only to whether some ballots were genuine or fraudulent and nothing else about them. Attempts after the ballots are counted to examine or question voters' motives, the grounds and criteria for their private decisions and who or what either did or might have influenced them--unless, of course, organized bribery or threats or intimidation can be shown to have happened-- are out of order and nobody's business to investigate.

Edited January 13, 2017 by proximity1

[ecoli]

I'm inclined to agree and I'm no fan of the idea of returning to cold war status with Russia. On the other hand, if it turns out the Trump campaign was complicit in the privileged dissemination of information, then there is legitimate cause to pursue legal action.

 

However, I assign very low probability to this, since simple incompetence and political jockeying is a simpler explanation. Especially to the #peegate component

[Delta1212]

How do you feel about the ban on candidates receiving campaign donations from non-citizens?

[ecoli]

How do you feel about the ban on candidates receiving campaign donations from non-citizens?

 

As long as non-citizens are living on US soil, they are protected by the first amendment. Given the Citizen's United ruling (money = speech) I don't see how banning campaign contributions is constitutional.

[Delta1212]

What if they are not living on US soil?

[proximity1]

 

@ 3 :

 

 

"How do you feel about the ban on candidates receiving campaign donations from non-citizens?"

 

 

I think it's fine to allow resident-aliens to vote in all local elections--they should of course register like anyone else (I.e. only town, city, etc. ) where they live. But I favor the ban on direct contributions of cash to political campaigns at every level. Alien residents personally volunteering their time on a campaign is also acceptable in my opinion.

[CharonY]

According to current law only permanent resident non-nationals are allowed to contribute. However none of this applies. The act is unlawful (breach of accounts) and from a foreign entity.

[RiceAWay]

Well. I wonder exactly what is going on in your minds. Science is the job of being skeptical about everything ALL of the time. Even your own work might be wrong and every time you trust anyone else you could be putting everything you ever worked for in jeopardy. It doesn't matter whether you are the smallest technician or the highest PhD. I made the mistake of trusting other and on a couple of occasions it almost killed me. So I trust no one and nothing until I have convinced myself that I am acting correctly.

 

We have absolutely NO way of knowing that "Russia" or any other nation was responsible for anything that Wikileaks released. What's MORE none of the information they released was denied by the DNC, the Hillary campaign or the media who were responsible for using unethical means to destroy Bernie Sanders chance at a nomination. Sanders was aware that this happened and yet then campaigned for Hillary. Does that sound moral? Now he'll have to suffer living in his six million dollar home and telling everyone else that socialism is a superior means of government.

 

Whoever it was, they should be given a commendation from this entire nation of either party. Lying to the people of this country by the media and the political establishment HAS TO STOP.

 

Secondly, exactly who is kidding who? The United States since the time of Reagan has hacked every single electronic communication device in the entire world. In the time of George Bush they actually recorded every single communication in the entire world CONTRARY to our Constitutional rights. Obama DOUBLED DOWN ON THIS until Citizens United took this before the Supreme Court and were ordered that they could not tap any citizen's communications without court orders.

 

Russia interfered with American elections by telling the truth? The US has used matware intrusions into MANY governments. In Iran and North Korea they inserted viruses that caused the centrifuges separating U235 from U238 to break down. At one time a third of Iran's processing plants were broken down.

 

How DARE anyone complain that WE might have to take electronic countermeasures to protect ourselves from what the entire rest of the world FRIEND AND FOE ALIKE has had to do from the moment that they began using the Internet seriously? To protect themselves from us.

 

Do none of you who are supposed to be scientists even use your brains for anything other than doorstops when you are not inside your professional cocoons? Please think.

[iNow]

When only half the truth is told and cherry picked facts are repeated without adding context, then the affect on the populace is asymmetric and consequently biased. It's the very skepticism you so passionately implore that drives me to this well supported most probable conclusion.

Edited January 17, 2017 by iNow

[Ophiolite]

Well. I wonder exactly what is going on in your minds. Science is the job of being skeptical about everything ALL of the time. Even your own work might be wrong and every time you trust anyone else you could be putting everything you ever worked for in jeopardy. It doesn't matter whether you are the smallest technician or the highest PhD. I made the mistake of trusting other and on a couple of occasions it almost killed me. So I trust no one and nothing until I have convinced myself that I am acting correctly.

So you screwed up badly and are unable to contemplate the possibility that some people don't screw up to the same extent. From a social standpoint, withholding trust on a routine and consistent basis is not a good idea.

 

 

We have absolutely NO way of knowing that "Russia" or any other nation was responsible for anything that Wikileaks released.

We have no way of knowing if we are not living in the Matrix, or lying in a coma imagining all this, or are part of an alien computer simulation. However, we do have good reason to believe it is highly probable that Russia engaged in the hacking of which they have been accused.

 

 

 

What's MORE none of the information they released was denied by the DNC, the Hillary campaign or the media who were responsible for using unethical means to destroy Bernie Sanders chance at a nomination. Sanders was aware that this happened and yet then campaigned for Hillary. Does that sound moral?

It sounds exceptionally moral. Setting to one side ones resentment and hurt at a failure brought on by an opponent to support that opponent because you believe they now offer the best remaining option is an act showing great moral character. If you cannot see that you may fit into the subset of humanity called "agenda driven fool".

 

 

Whoever it was, they should be given a commendation from this entire nation of either party. Lying to the people of this country by the media and the political establishment HAS TO STOP.

That would be nice, but at least they are your liars. Would you welcome a neighbour telling you about a possible affair your spouse was having, when their motive was nothing other than to cause you grief?

 

 

 

Secondly, exactly who is kidding who? The United States since the time of Reagan has hacked every single electronic communication device in the entire world. In the time of George Bush they actually recorded every single communication in the entire world CONTRARY to our Constitutional rights. Obama DOUBLED DOWN ON THIS until Citizens United took this before the Supreme Court and were ordered that they could not tap any citizen's communications without court orders.

You give the US intelligence community rather more credit than they merit. The issue here is not the hacking. It is the use to which the hacked information has been put. If you are happy to have Putin and his apparatus improperly influence the direction of the US government, I can probably get you an honorary Captaincy in GRU.

 

 

Russia interfered with American elections by telling the truth? The US has used matware intrusions into MANY governments. In Iran and North Korea they inserted viruses that caused the centrifuges separating U235 from U238 to break down. At one time a third of Iran's processing plants were broken down.

Two questions, from different perspectives:

1. If you were Iranian would you be happy about that?

2. Do you want Iran to have nuclear weapons?

 

 

How DARE anyone complain that WE might have to take electronic countermeasures to protect ourselves from what the entire rest of the world FRIEND AND FOE ALIKE has had to do from the moment that they began using the Internet seriously? To protect themselves from us.

I've tried very hard, but as far as I can see that is a strawman argument.

 

 

Do none of you who are supposed to be scientists even use your brains for anything other than doorstops when you are not inside your professional cocoons? Please think.

 

Well, I'm not supposed to be a scientist, but I do use my brain. It has been quite useful in helping me identify you as a hysterical zealot. Good luck with that modus operandi.

 

 

 

[CharonY]

I am surprised that OP does not take into consideration that the information was obtained illegally and did not actually expose any criminal actions (i.e. would not even come close to whistle blowing). As such the actions of being hacked and the announcement of the FBI (despite Comey's claim now that it is actually not procedure) was the part that may have influenced the election, rather than the exposed information in itself.

 

It is like being OK to someone break in somewhere to expose someone's slightly weird private obsessions in order to discredit them. Also, there are various degrees that one need to look at. The actions of an average permanent resident or even mult-billionaire with international ambitions (the latter being legal, but maybe slightly worrisome) to foreign state actors. I mean, it is not that those provide you with factual, unbiased information, but are actually engaging in the propaganda war that has is increasingly being the regular tone in elections, it seems.

Edited January 17, 2017 by CharonY

[proximity1]

@ 11:

 

RE: "I am surprised that OP does not take into consideration that the information was obtained illegally and did not actually expose any criminal actions (i.e. would not even come close to whistle blowing)."

 

In fact, the best source (Julian Assange of Wikileaks) has repeatedly said that the data came from a source within the U.S. and, as I understand it, was one which may well have had legal access to the files. No one has shown anything in compelling public evidence to the contrary. No credible source has refuted Assange's assertions about the provenance of the data. Instead, the elite-supporting mainstream media harp on and on about Russian sources as though Assange had not definitively rebutted that claim. Note: we're concerned here with the e-mail files from John Podesta and their revelation's reamifications for the campaign of Hillary Clinton. This doesn't mean that Russian, on its own account, never makes attempts to break into and steal data via networked somputer communications systems. I don't doubt the Russians attempt this. The point, however, is that all of the information revealed was, according to all the best publicly-available information due to sources which were not dependent on the Russian government for access or for the files. The point is that, in taking into account the content of these revealed e-mail messages, not only were prospective voters doing nothing wrong, not only were they legally entiteled to take such information into account, the fact that many did so does not by any sane stretch of the imagination constitute "interference" or "meddling" in the U.S. election.

 

As has been pointed out repeatedly, any reputable U.S. news organization which could have come into possession of these same data should have been eager to and expected to reveal them to the public in their reporting.

 

Come on!

 

____________________

 

 

(Rrealclearpolitics.com)

WikiLeaks' Julian Assange: Russian Government Was Not Source For Podesta, DNC Emails

Posted By Tim Hains
On Date December 15, 2016

JULIAN ASSANGE, WIKILEAKS: Our source is not the Russian government.

SEAN HANNITY: So let me be clear: Russia did not give you the Podesta documents or anything from the DNC.

ASSANGE: Correct. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/12/15/wikileaks_julian_assange_russian_government_was_not_source_for_podesta_dnc_emails.html)

Assange: "Our source is not a state party. So the answer -- for our interactions -- is no,"

Assange told anchor Sean Hannity from his quarters at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where he has lived under diplomatic protection since 2012. (http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/04/politics/assange-wikileaks-hannity-intv/)

Edited January 17, 2017 by proximity1

[Delta1212]

I stopped believing anything Julian Assange says a long time ago. The man is a hypocritical egomaniac with a personal motto of "privacy for me but not for thee."

 

I was intrigued by Wikileaks' stated mission of global transparency when they first started, but in the intervening years, they've shifted from a stated policy of "We release everything we get as is" to using very obvious editorial control over what and when things get released seemingly based on Assange's personal feelings.

 

At this point, they're less of a whistleblowing platform and more the heir to Gawker media, except with a founder who is more concerned with the numerous axes he has to grind with various people and entities than with page-clicks.

[CharonY]

Not only that, cybersecurity analyses have shown that a security breach was behind the leaks, i.e. assuming legal access is more than unlikely, and I am not sure why you would try to argue otherwise. Even Assange is not asserting that they were obtained illegally. The only thing he has said is that the source is not the Russian government.

However, it is not clear whether he actually knows the source (as WikiLeaks was supposed to be set up to allow anonymous drops). Even so, there is increasing hypocrisy in his actions as demonstrated by his criticism of the Panama leaks.

So no, Assange is not a neutral player in this game. The only thing that is not certain is whether the government was really behind it. At this point intelligence points to yes, but short of Russia actually admitting it, it will remain somewhat uncertain.

[proximity1]

First, Delta1212 @ 13 offers us an ad hominem argument against Assange. No challenge of that from CharonY or any moderator; yet ad hominem arguments are classic faux pas of reasoning. But, well, who cares? It's acceptable here to attack Assange in that manner. It's "in-group" approved practice.

 

Second, In order for Assange to know that the source wasn't Russian or even depending on the Russians, he had to be aware of the source's identity--and he is. He has said the source comes from within the ranks of the U.S. political establishment. You weren't aware of this?

 

You do know that Wikileaks requires sources to demonstrate that their claims are bona fide, right? You do know that, unless Wikileaks can verify either the data's veracity or the source's credibility beyond all doubt, or both, they don't publish, right?

 

Thirdly, RE this:

 

" cybersecurity analyses have shown that a security breach was behind the leaks, i.e. assuming legal access is more than unlikely, and I am not sure why you would try to argue otherwise."

 

 

Which cybersecurity analyses? The servers and portable drives had been tainted as evidence before the F.B.I.'s own analysts bothered to examine them for this, hadn't they? Do we know which specific hardware was breached? Was it Oodesta's own? Some others in his e-mail circles? Who's word are we taking on this point? And why?

 

 

Fourth, re-read this carefully, for it's exactly right:

 

"Even Assange is not asserting that they were obtained illegally." {sic}

 

 

 

Where's the usual moderator-enforced intellectual rigor invariably demanded "toute de suite" from the out-group's members?

 

 

For Swansont: "Exhibit C"

Edited January 17, 2017 by proximity1

[DrP]

a- she was expressing opinion.

b - no-one has challenged her claim yet.

c - she wasn't making scientific claims

d - no-one cares

Edited January 17, 2017 by DrP

[Delta1212]

First, Delta1212 @ 13 offers us an ad hominem argument against Assange. No challenge of that from CharonY or any moderator; yet ad hominem arguments are classic faux pas of reasoning. But, well, who cares? It's acceptable here to attack Assange in that manner. It's "in-group" approved practice.

 

Second, In order for Assange to know that the source wasn't Russian or even depending on the Russians, he had to be aware of the source's identity--and he is. He has said the source comes from within the ranks of the U.S. political establishment. You weren't aware of this?

You do know that Wikileaks requires sources to demonstrate that their claims are bona fide, right? You do know that, unless Wikileas can verify either the data's veracity or the source's credibility beyond all doubt, or both, they don't publish, right?

 

Where's the usual moderator-enforced intellectual rigor invariably demanded "toute de suite" from the out-group's members?

 

An ad hominem is an attack on an individual in order to discredit their argument rather than addressing the substance of their argument on its merits.

 

Assange did not make an argument. He made a claim. The only source for that claim is himself. I am not attacking the maker of an argument. I am attacking the credibility of a source.

 

If the only source for a piece of information is someone who lacks credibility, pointing out their lack of credibility is not an ad hominem. If he was citing a credible source, then attacking him instead of addressing the information would be an ad hominem. As is, there is nothing to address regarding his claim except for the likelihood that he is lying or misrepresenting what he knows. He has provided no evidence for his claims other than his word.

 

And I don't find his word particularly compelling for the aforementioned reasons.

[proximity1]

@ 17

 

Again: if the patently shoddy attempt in post 17 isn't rebuked for its fallacies, how except moderator bias does one account for what would draw withering rebuke if it had come from an out-group member-- one pushing an unfavored opinion?

 

 

Assange's claim is dismissed preemptively on nothing but the assertion that no evidence sourced on his word is receivable as credible for no other ground than that he is the source-- a classic ad hominem argument.

 

 

For Swansont : "Exhibit D"

 

_____________________

 

@ 16 : "Exhibit E"

Edited January 17, 2017 by proximity1

[CharonY]

Obviously I meant to say "legally". It is interesting that you make the assumption that he had to know the source- but that runs counter to how they claim they run their things https://wikileaks.org/About.html

 

 

Like other media outlets conducting investigative journalism, we accept (but do not solicit) anonymous sources of information. Unlike other outlets, we provide a high security anonymous drop box fortified by cutting-edge cryptographic information technologies. This provides maximum protection to our sources

 

What we can say is that we operate a number of servers across multiple international jurisdictions and we we do not keep logs. Hence these logs can not be seized. Anonymization occurs early in the WikiLeaks network, long before information passes to our web servers. Without specialized global internet traffic analysis, multiple parts of our organisation must conspire with each other to strip submitters of their anonymity.

 

Thus for some reasons this particular set of information was not processed through their usual pipeline, or Assange is lying. Regarding the rest you really only need to check virtually any news source. Interestingly, the only outlets claiming that it was whistleblower are RT (a Russian outlet) and some alt-right websites (note the Julian Assange Show is broadcasted on RT...) . In either case not citing Assange but Craig Murray. Note that was before the last intelligence report was presented.

Edited January 17, 2017 by CharonY

[Delta1212]

@ 17

 

Again: if the patently shoddy attempt in post 17 isn't rebuked for its fallacies, how except moderator bias does one account for what would draw withering rebuke if it had come from an out-group member-- one pushing an unfavored opinion?

 

 

Assange's claim is dismissed preemptively on nothing but the assertion that no evidence sourced on his word is receivable as credible for no other ground than that he is the source-- a classic ad hominem argument.

 

 

For Swansont : "Exhibit D"

 

_____________________

 

@ 16 : "Exhibit E"

 

I did not say that no evidence presented by Assange is credible simply because it comes from Assange. In fact, I specifically referenced the fact that, were Assange presenting credible evidence, then attacking his credibility instead of addressing the evidence would indeed be an ad hominem. I said that Assange has not presented any evidence, and in the absence of evidence, I am disinclined to take his word for it.

 

It should also be noted that, just in general, an ad hominem is not merely a personal attack but is specifically a logical fallacy. It specifically takes the form of attacking the validity of someone's argument by attacking the personal characteristics of the person making it.

 

I am not attacking the validity of Assange's argument. I'm not sure he is even making a logical argument in the strictest sense, although if you boil it down to something like "If the source of the information is someone in the US, then the source is not the Russian government > The source of the information is someone from the US > The source is not the Russian government" then I agree that it's a perfectly valid argument.

 

I am, rather, attacking the truth value of one of his premises based on the fact that there is no credible evidence that the source was someone from the US with legitimate access to the information. Evaluating the credibility of a piece of evidence is not an ad hominem attack, and this does not change if the evidence is simply that someone said something is true simply because the evidence is, then, the word of a person.

[proximity1]

 

@ 19

 

Often Wikileaks can independently check and verify submissions because the facts alleged don't depend on knowledge of the source's identity. That one _may_ submit anonymously surely doesn't preclude WL's occasional need to know the source's identity or their pledge to protect that source's privacy--does it, in your opinion?

 

Do you seriously dispute that, as a logical necessity, unless you allege that Assange is lying (as Delta1212 contends we should always assume to be the case), Assange would have to know--or be confident of another's knowing-- the identity of the source or he couldn't state categorically that the source was _not_ Russian or a state actor, right?

 

 

In this case it seems from what Assange has said that it's clear that:

 

the Podesta emails came from a source who either voluntarily revealed his or her identity to WL because that supported the person's account, or WL informed the source that WL couldn't publish without this knowledge.

 

 

And thus Assange or his trusted assistance know this S ID

 

 

And the S is an insider, not a "state"/government actor or a foreign based agent.

 

Why should that view be rejected?

 

Do you see anything there implausible? If so, what?

 

 

@ 2O : "I did not say that no evidence presented by Assange is credible simply because it comes from Assange."

 

 

"In fact, I specifically referenced the fact that, were Assange presenting credible evidence, then attacking his credibility instead of addressing the evidence would indeed be an ad hominem. I said that Assange has not presented any evidence, and in the absence of evidence, I am disinclined to take his word for it."

 

 

 

 

---->

 

 

@13 : "Delta1212

 

Primate

Senior Members

2,267 posts

 

Posted Today, 01:16 PM

 

"I stopped believing anything Julian Assange says a long time ago. The man is a hypocritical egomaniac with a personal motto of 'privacy for me but not for thee.' "

[Delta1212]

The obvious caveat is that if he provides evidence for something he says, I can then evaluate the evidence, which I can then either accept or reject on its own merits and base my belief on rather than believing Assange himself.

 

I'm not going to actively disbelieve that the sky is blue just because Assange says it is. I just won't be taking his word for it.

[RiceAWay]

I stopped believing anything Julian Assange says a long time ago. The man is a hypocritical egomaniac with a personal motto of "privacy for me but not for thee."

 

I was intrigued by Wikileaks' stated mission of global transparency when they first started, but in the intervening years, they've shifted from a stated policy of "We release everything we get as is" to using very obvious editorial control over what and when things get released seemingly based on Assange's personal feelings.

 

At this point, they're less of a whistleblowing platform and more the heir to Gawker media, except with a founder who is more concerned with the numerous axes he has to grind with various people and entities than with page-clicks.

Why do I have the suspicion that your dislike of Wikileaks has to do with the almost entire release of criminal actions turn out to be governments and most especially Obama and Hillary? I guess that shows what sort of direction you are tilting in.

 

I did not say that no evidence presented by Assange is credible simply because it comes from Assange. In fact, I specifically referenced the fact that, were Assange presenting credible evidence, then attacking his credibility instead of addressing the evidence would indeed be an ad hominem. I said that Assange has not presented any evidence, and in the absence of evidence, I am disinclined to take his word for it.

 

It should also be noted that, just in general, an ad hominem is not merely a personal attack but is specifically a logical fallacy. It specifically takes the form of attacking the validity of someone's argument by attacking the personal characteristics of the person making it.

 

I am not attacking the validity of Assange's argument. I'm not sure he is even making a logical argument in the strictest sense, although if you boil it down to something like "If the source of the information is someone in the US, then the source is not the Russian government > The source of the information is someone from the US > The source is not the Russian government" then I agree that it's a perfectly valid argument.

 

I am, rather, attacking the truth value of one of his premises based on the fact that there is no credible evidence that the source was someone from the US with legitimate access to the information. Evaluating the credibility of a piece of evidence is not an ad hominem attack, and this does not change if the evidence is simply that someone said something is true simply because the evidence is, then, the word of a person.

Don't look now but the actual FACT that the DNC, the Hillary Campaign and the MEDIA involved did NOT rebuke it is PROOF that this in fact, prima facie, occurred.

(Excerpt from Politico.com : http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/paul-ryan-town-hall-trump-obamacare-233577 )

 

By Rachael Bade. 01/13/17 12:07 AM EST

 

"House Speaker Paul Ryan on Thursday night offered the fullest accounting of his own thinking on the direction of the nation since the election, even gently breaking from President-elect Donald Trump on controversial policies from Russia sanctions to Medicare reform.

 

"Ryan also said the U.S. needed to step up our game in countering Russia after the nation's interference in the election. Trump throughout the entire campaign defended Russia and cast doubt on intelligence findings alleging cyber-intrusions. His pick for secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, refused during his confirmation hearing this week to commit to continuing Russia sanctions.

 

Ryan, however, didnt hold back his scorn for Putins ploys.

 

I think we have to step up our game on Russia with respect to confronting Russia when they act like this, when they frustrate our interests, he said. I do believe they tried to affect our elections••• There is no place for that••• I do think sanctions are called for."

 

••• •••

 

_________________

 

My different view on "interference" in our elections.

 

["One man's "interference" is another's "useful information)

 

Had U.S. voters wanted to weigh the importance of Trump's real or supposed ties to interests in Russia or to its president, Vladimir Putin, or to any other Russians as factors in their decisions about the best candidate for U.S. president, is there anyone who seriously doubts or questions their right to consider such aspects? It's a virtual certainty that some voters did just that: considered Trump's personal ties to Russians--and some of them voted for Clinton while others of them voted for Trump.

 

The fact is that voters have a right to consider anything they regard as worthy of their time and attention in weighing up their voting decisions. Anything --no matter its source or the possible motives of the source(s), whether known or only guessed--is within their purview as for their decisions' criteria and bases.

 

Thus, if information bearing on the election-- as the voters see it-- comes to them from whatever source, domestic or foreign, they have a right to either accept or refuse to take that information into account as, in their sole judgment, they see fit to do. No one has a right to require a voter to reveal how or why he or she voted in a secret balloting and no one has a right to require that a voter account for his decision.

 

Thus, attempts by foreign individuals or groups to inform, advise or persuasde voters --openly or via hidden means-- are receivable or not according to the judgment of each individual voter.

 

How else could people be free to vote as they see fit?-- whether it be wisely or foolishly, from fear or in fearlessness, for sound or absurd reasons and motives.

 

Even if Vladimir Putin had avowed having stolen and leaked information for the expressed purpose of influencing voters, the voters have every right to decide whether or not to take this into account--just as they have the right to urge their fellow voters to accept or reject such an effort to influence them.

 

(ETA) All of this prior to election-day.

 

Once the ballots are cast and counted, once a result has come into view, the "rightness," the legitimacy, of the election and its results are properly confined only to whether some ballots were genuine or fraudulent and nothing else about them. Attempts after the ballots are counted to examine or question voters' motives, the grounds and criteria for their private decisions and who or what either did or might have influenced them--unless, of course, organized bribery or threats or intimidation can be shown to have happened-- are out of order and nobody's business to investigate.

 

Let's remember that the far left wing and the far right wing of our government are in full agreement that we need another cold war. Both of these sides are supported almost entirely by the military/industrial complex.

[swansont]

 

For Swansont: "Exhibit C"

 

 

!

Moderator Note

I just want to note that I have not been following this thread, nor have any current intention to do so. I only saw this because it was brought to my attention just now.

[RiceAWay]

My best friend who saved my life was a Federal Investigator, now on medical retirement since the stress of these jobs often causes heart problems as it did in him. He contends as other FBI contacts have told me that because of the almost total corruption of the Obama government including Comey that some 24 senior FBI members have resigned/retired because Hillary was not charged. They have incontrovertible evidence and if ANY mistakes had occurred the court could rule on that.

 

There are so many criminal felonies that Hillary should be charged with that they are clear on this - there is two laws in the US: one for the common man and the other for the rich and powerful who do not need to worry about simple things like being law abiding.

 

When even the Washington Post and the New York Times print articles on the incredible illegal activities of Hilary and not a single charge is filed just remember that when you get your next $500 rolling stop right turn on red when you slowed to less than one mph.

The obvious caveat is that if he provides evidence for something he says, I can then evaluate the evidence, which I can then either accept or reject on its own merits and base my belief on rather than believing Assange himself.

I'm not going to actively disbelieve that the sky is blue just because Assange says it is. I just won't be taking his word for it.

Sorry, you have rejected it before knowing a single thing about it.

Edited January 17, 2017 by RiceAWay