By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Machiavellian on 14 June 2019
jason1637 said:
the-pi-guy said:

Do you really not understand why "bribery" would be against the law?

I kinda get that aspect of it but like if someone lives in the US but is not a citizens it's pretty dumb that it's illegal for them to support a candidate with their own money. Also if you're running for elected office you're trying to convince people that you're a better candidate and if you're offered dirt that could help you prove this you should be able to take it even if it's from another country. A lot of politicians already take money from big companies and CEOs anyway.

I believe you are really missing the point.  No country does something out of the goodness of their heart.  If they are willing to give you something like dirt on another candidate really think about what motives they would have in doing so. There is always a favor behind any such deal.  That favor is considered bribery and the bigger the info, the bigger the price.

Also if the other country knows that giving you information is a crime and you accept it, you just compromised yourself and put yourself under a situation where you could be extorted.  This is why Trump statement really makes him look like a complete and utter fool.  



jason1637 on 14 June 2019
Machiavellian said:
jason1637 said:

I kinda get that aspect of it but like if someone lives in the US but is not a citizens it's pretty dumb that it's illegal for them to support a candidate with their own money. Also if you're running for elected office you're trying to convince people that you're a better candidate and if you're offered dirt that could help you prove this you should be able to take it even if it's from another country. A lot of politicians already take money from big companies and CEOs anyway.

I believe you are really missing the point.  No country does something out of the goodness of their heart.  If they are willing to give you something like dirt on another candidate really think about what motives they would have in doing so. There is always a favor behind any such deal.  That favor is considered bribery and the bigger the info, the bigger the price.

Also if the other country knows that giving you information is a crime and you accept it, you just compromised yourself and put yourself under a situation where you could be extorted.  This is why Trump statement really makes him look like a complete and utter fool.  

It makes sense if they say you have to do something in return but like if they know that you would be a better candidate that will build a better relationship with their country and give you info based on that without asking for stuff in return I don't see anything wrong with it.

I get the part that it's illegal. Even though I think that law is bad Trump should not take dirt from other countries cause that's the law.



jason1637 on 14 June 2019


I feel that in 2020 were gonna see more progressive democrats primarying moderate/established democrats.



Moren on 14 June 2019
jason1637 said:

I feel that in 2020 were gonna see more progressive democrats primarying moderate/established democrats.

I really wish she would win the primary, and then have a Republican win the general election.



Machiavellian on 14 June 2019
jason1637 said:
Machiavellian said:

I believe you are really missing the point.  No country does something out of the goodness of their heart.  If they are willing to give you something like dirt on another candidate really think about what motives they would have in doing so. There is always a favor behind any such deal.  That favor is considered bribery and the bigger the info, the bigger the price.

Also if the other country knows that giving you information is a crime and you accept it, you just compromised yourself and put yourself under a situation where you could be extorted.  This is why Trump statement really makes him look like a complete and utter fool.  

It makes sense if they say you have to do something in return but like if they know that you would be a better candidate that will build a better relationship with their country and give you info based on that without asking for stuff in return I don't see anything wrong with it.

I get the part that it's illegal. Even though I think that law is bad Trump should not take dirt from other countries cause that's the law.

There would never be a case you could prove they did not have ulterior motives.  The fact that you would put yourself in a position to be exploited and extorted is another thing.  This is how politicians get compromised.  Just because someone says there is no strings attached to something doesn't mean there isn't.  The reason you think the law is bad is because you are looking at it in this holistic view without taking into account history. The Law isn't in place for the few instances where your case becomes valid, it's there because their isn't a way to validate your case in majority of the situations.

Yes in a beautiful world, another country could say we are doing this for the people but how often do you believe that happens.  Take America for instance, how many times has the US interfered with another country and helped someone get put into power turn out to be best for the people instead of what is best for the US.



jason1637 on 14 June 2019
morenoingrato said:
jason1637 said:

I feel that in 2020 were gonna see more progressive democrats primarying moderate/established democrats.

I really wish she would win the primary, and then have a Republican win the general election.

TX-28 is solid Dem. They vote democrat 60-80% so if she won the primary she would win the general.



jason1637 on 14 June 2019
Machiavellian said:
jason1637 said:

It makes sense if they say you have to do something in return but like if they know that you would be a better candidate that will build a better relationship with their country and give you info based on that without asking for stuff in return I don't see anything wrong with it.

I get the part that it's illegal. Even though I think that law is bad Trump should not take dirt from other countries cause that's the law.

There would never be a case you could prove they did not have ulterior motives.  The fact that you would put yourself in a position to be exploited and extorted is another thing.  This is how politicians get compromised.  Just because someone says there is no strings attached to something doesn't mean there isn't.  The reason you think the law is bad is because you are looking at it in this holistic view without taking into account history. The Law isn't in place for the few instances where your case becomes valid, it's there because their isn't a way to validate your case in majority of the situations.

Yes in a beautiful world, another country could say we are doing this for the people but how often do you believe that happens.  Take America for instance, how many times has the US interfered with another country and helped someone get put into power turn out to be best for the people instead of what is best for the US.

If a country like Isreal gave dirt to a candidate that's pro Isreal against a candidate that's not pro Isreal because they know the former would be more beneficial to their country I don't see that as a problem. I do get that It could be a problem if they had an agreement but this ulterior motive can probably be proven with an investigation.

Well it makes sense that the US would interfere in its best interest. Makes no sense for America to intervene if it doesnt benefit us.



Machiavellian on 14 June 2019
jason1637 said:
Machiavellian said:

There would never be a case you could prove they did not have ulterior motives.  The fact that you would put yourself in a position to be exploited and extorted is another thing.  This is how politicians get compromised.  Just because someone says there is no strings attached to something doesn't mean there isn't.  The reason you think the law is bad is because you are looking at it in this holistic view without taking into account history. The Law isn't in place for the few instances where your case becomes valid, it's there because their isn't a way to validate your case in majority of the situations.

Yes in a beautiful world, another country could say we are doing this for the people but how often do you believe that happens.  Take America for instance, how many times has the US interfered with another country and helped someone get put into power turn out to be best for the people instead of what is best for the US.

If a country like Isreal gave dirt to a candidate that's pro Isreal against a candidate that's not pro Isreal because they know the former would be more beneficial to their country I don't see that as a problem. I do get that It could be a problem if they had an agreement but this ulterior motive can probably be proven with an investigation.

Well it makes sense that the US would interfere in its best interest. Makes no sense for America to intervene if it doesnt benefit us.

I still do not understand your logic.  Are you saying that you are ok that another nation is willing to influence our elections to help themselves instead of the people who live in that country.  So now you have multiple nations doing things that benefit them instead of us and you see nothing wrong with that.  I really do not know what to say that you see nothing wrong with this because the implications are pretty huge.  Even if you take American history as an example you would know how bad this can get.  Hopping an investigation will root this out when the people in power can also influence the investigation is really being naive.



jason1637 on 14 June 2019
Machiavellian said:
jason1637 said:

If a country like Isreal gave dirt to a candidate that's pro Isreal against a candidate that's not pro Isreal because they know the former would be more beneficial to their country I don't see that as a problem. I do get that It could be a problem if they had an agreement but this ulterior motive can probably be proven with an investigation.

Well it makes sense that the US would interfere in its best interest. Makes no sense for America to intervene if it doesnt benefit us.

I still do not understand your logic.  Are you saying that you are ok that another nation is willing to influence our elections to help themselves instead of the people who live in that country.  So now you have multiple nations doing things that benefit them instead of us and you see nothing wrong with that.  I really do not know what to say that you see nothing wrong with this because the implications are pretty huge.  Even if you take American history as an example you would know how bad this can get.  Hopping an investigation will root this out when the people in power can also influence the investigation is really being naive.

I'm trying to say that if a country offers dirt to somebody and does not make an agreement saying the candidate must do this if they win then I don't think that should be illegal. This is dirt that the people deserve to hear if the person is really that bad. I don't think other nations should intervene in other countries elections though. It's like i dont think drugs should be illegal but I dont think people should be taking them.

the-pi-guy said:
jason1637 said:

It makes sense if they say you have to do something in return but like if they know that you would be a better candidate that will build a better relationship with their country and give you info based on that without asking for stuff in return I don't see anything wrong with it.

I get the part that it's illegal. Even though I think that law is bad Trump should not take dirt from other countries cause that's the law.

Two problems:

First problem: Even if there wasn't a prior agreement, you could still run into issues.

"I helped you get elected.  If you don't do this for me, you're not going to win the next election.  We'll pick someone who is more friendly for us."

Second problem:  A candidate gets elected that isn't positive for their own country.  

 If countries are allowed to help candidates, you could potentially have an entire congress that is in power due to a foreign entity.

jason1637 said:

If a country like Isreal gave dirt to a candidate that's pro Isreal against a candidate that's not pro Isreal because they know the former would be more beneficial to their country I don't see that as a problem. I do get that It could be a problem if they had an agreement but this ulterior motive can probably be proven with an investigation.

Well it makes sense that the US would interfere in its best interest. Makes no sense for America to intervene if it doesnt benefit us.

There's the problem. 

There would be no investigations.  There's no oversight because the people in charge are in charge because of someone else's influence.  

  

These are actually anti-corruption laws that were ratified by most of the planet.  They are not just US laws.  These are UN laws that nearly country has adopted because everyone knows it's a serious risk.  

I'm only referring to giving dirt and people born in other countries that live in the US donating to candidates. I dont think other countries should be able to interfere past that and just pick candidates like you mentioned. If more people with a clean history ran for office there would be no dirt to give so I don't think the situation that congress is controlled by other countries would work out.

There would be an investigation because the executive branch would investigate people in congress and congress can investigate those in the executive branch.

But you do have a point that this could get pretty bad so maybe it's best to keep the law the way it is so the worst case scenarios you described don't happen.





CuCabeludo on 14 June 2019

Trump is officially a warmonger just like Bush and Obama(Obama by the way, outbombed Bush on Middle East during his terms, he also destroyed Lybia which now it has become a hellhole on earth, invaded Syria ilegally, etc). Trump in campaign promissed no more wars/US military spending/expansion around the world, as a libertarian myself, I believed that. Now he is on the brink of a new war against Iran, he promissed he would leave Afghanistan and Syria, which Bush and Obama ilegally invaded, now he is permanently in those two countries... He is also ramping up military spending.

A complete 180 from his campaign promisses.