Tulsi Gabbard

Quote: SOOPOO

Your 'facts' are just misinformation to others.

This is crap. There is only ONE set of facts. ONE. Alternative facts is a phrase coined by Kellyanne in an effort to manipulate gullible people.

Yes, we can agree that the USA meddles in elections. But it's MOTIVE for doing so is spreading freedom and strengthening democracy, NOT backing particular candidates.

“Unlike Russian electoral meddling,” argues Thomas Carothers of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “U.S. democracy promotion does not … favor particular candidates, or undercut the technical integrity of elections. On the whole, it seeks to help citizens exercise their basic political and civil rights.”

That is what distinguishes what we do vs what they did. And to hear the GOP compare the two and put them on equal footing is sad. It says a lot about where they are today as a party.

But hey, like Trump said in his Super Bowl interview, "You got a lot of killers. What, you think our country's so innocent?"

American exceptionalism is dead in the GOP. Putin got that one right, didn't he?

Quote: Tripdufan

This is crap. There is only ONE set of facts. ONE. Alternative facts is a phrase coined by Kellyanne in an effort to manipulate gullible people.

Yes, we can agree that the USA meddles in elections. But it's MOTIVE for doing so is spreading freedom and strengthening democracy, NOT backing particular candidates.

“Unlike Russian electoral meddling,” argues Thomas Carothers of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “U.S. democracy promotion does not … favor particular candidates, or undercut the technical integrity of elections. On the whole, it seeks to help citizens exercise their basic political and civil rights.”

That is what distinguishes what we do vs what they did. And to hear the GOP compare the two and put them on equal footing is sad. It says a lot about where they are today as a party.

But hey, like Trump said in his Super Bowl interview, "You got a lot of killers. What, you think our country's so innocent?"

American exceptionalism is dead in the GOP. Putin got that one right, didn't he?

Some would disagree with your 'fact' the the USA's motive in election interference is spreading freedom and democracy. Some may think it is to protect our financial interests worldwide. You think we show support for the Saudi regime because they are good people?

I would also argue with you that whatever Russian interference there has been, it does not "undercut the technical integrity of elections". Just please tell me which ONE US citizen was not allowed to "exercise his basic political and civil rights" due to Russian meddling? Please name ONE!!!!!!!

Quote: SOOPOO

I would also argue with you that whatever Russian interference there has been, it does not "undercut the technical integrity of elections".

Umm, what?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/us/politics/russian-hacking-elections.html

https://www.rollcall.com/news/whitehouse/barrs-conclusion-no-obstruction-gets-new-scrutiny

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume1.pdf

Still believe that?

If you believe that Russia's hacking operation did not actually CHANGE votes, you're right, there is no evidence of that. But to suggest that their efforts didn't "undercut the technical integrity" of our election is absurd.

Quote: SOOPOO

I guess I am NOT AGAINST Russia, or Steyer, or BLM, or anyone buying ads on FB.

I am definitely against foreign money from Russia, but not these others. Not necessarily because of a Presidential race. But where a foreign entity really has some financial power would be to overwhelm finances of smaller races where money is often more limited in order to push their own agenda.

Sure you can run counter ads, but a foreign entity can make their megaphone many times larger and more often in the smaller races. Americans could be running against multiplied foreign sources with big pockets.

Yes, I don't think it is as big an issue in national election, but I see no good coming from allowing IT even if it's from friendly allies who may want to push their business interests in favor of American interests. NOT a good idea AT ALL!

Quote: rxwine

I am definitely against foreign money from Russia, but not these others. Not necessarily because of a Presidential race. But where a foreign entity really has some financial power would be to overwhelm finances of smaller races where money is often more limited in order to push their own agenda.

Sure you can run counter ads, but a foreign entity can make their megaphone many times larger and more often in the smaller races. Americans could be running against multiplied foreign sources with big pockets.

Yes, I don't think it is as big an issue in national election, but I see no good coming from allowing IT even if it's from friendly allies who may want to push their business interests in favor of American interests. NOT a good idea AT ALL!

I think it is a very complicated issue, and I haven't thought through all the permutations.
Do you think it should be illegal for China to buy an ad on CNN describing why they think the Trump tariffs are bad? One can argue that this type of ad would favor a Trump adversary and affect the election.
Do you think Ireland should be allowed to show all of the Trump golf courses in an ad to draw American tourists there? One could argue that showing Trump in such a positive light would favor Trump and us affect the election.
Do you think Mexico should be allowed to have an ad showing birds and animals dying at a big ugly border wall? Clearly this would be an anti-trump ad, even without a single mention of Trump.

Even though political in nature, I would be FOR allowing all three examples. I think trying to throttle free speech never seems to work out well

Quote: SOOPOO

I think it is a very complicated issue, and I haven't thought through all the permutations.
Do you think it should be illegal for China to buy an ad on CNN describing why they think the Trump tariffs are bad? One can argue that this type of ad would favor a Trump adversary and affect the election.
Do you think Ireland should be allowed to show all of the Trump golf courses in an ad to draw American tourists there? One could argue that showing Trump in such a positive light would favor Trump and us affect the election.
Do you think Mexico should be allowed to have an ad showing birds and animals dying at a big ugly border wall? Clearly this would be an anti-trump ad, even without a single mention of Trump.

Even though political in nature, I would be FOR allowing all three examples. I think trying to throttle free speech never seems to work out well

Can't say I've ever heard of something being labeled a political ad that mentions no candidate or party, or politics.

I think the Trump golf courses can be advertised as long as the necessary things are done from preventing Trump from profiting during his term. But not sure.
I think this is the only questionable one of your examples. The others can't be designated as political ads.

Note, they could mention tariffs but not call them Trump tariffs.

I think there could be complaints about the Mexico ad, but it would have to do more than just show the wall IMO.

Quote: rxwine

Can't say I've ever heard of something being labeled a political ad that mentions no candidate or party, or politics.

This is actually HOW dark money gets used. Exactly what is politics that has to be mentioned?

Imagine an ad that shows an unemployment line with 100 people on it and you see 2015 on the calendar. Now imagine the same line with 2019 and only two people on line. You don't think that is an ad for Trump?

Quote: SOOPOO

This is actually HOW dark money gets used. Exactly what is politics that has to be mentioned?

Imagine an ad that shows an unemployment line with 100 people on it and you see 2015 on the calendar. Now imagine the same line with 2019 and only two people on line. You don't think that is an ad for Trump?

Unless you want to see courts tied up in cases similar to defining porn, there’s nothing one can do where ads don’t link to politics.

That’s a non-issue to me.

Quote: rxwine

Unless you want to see courts tied up in cases similar to defining porn, there’s nothing one can do where ads don’t link to politics.

That’s a non-issue to me.

And it's a non-issue to me as well. I don't care if Russia or Steyer or Mexico put ads on whose goal is to influence the election. If you think the unemployment line ad I posited does not link to politics, I can't help you understand....