Bush really did mess up in the middle east but Bush's fuck up in the middle east should not be compared to Obama's. Obama did what he had to do and at the end of his presidency the situation int he middle east was way better than it was when he entered.

A war with Iran wont happen. Trump has been pulling troops out of the middle east but unfortunately he is also increased military spending.

Look at Lybia, today is much, much worse than before Obama bombed it to nothing and killed Gadaffi. No country US invaded since its "war on terror" began is better than it was before.

God bless Putin in Syria, if it wan't Russia defending the secular regime of Assad, it would have been replaced by a barbaric islamic caliphate by the US.

I mean for the US things are better. Libya may have got worst but the people are better off now since their last leader killed his own people. If Obama did not do what he did Libya would have been worse today.

How would you know the other country did not make an agreement.  How would you be able to determine that there isn't something under the table.  If its dirt that the people deserve to hear then the other nation does not have to make any agreement with a candidate or give it to them to publicize, instead they could just easily release it to any news agency. 

Why do you believe that if they give it to a candidate instead of just releasing it to a news agency what would be their goal.  Even then, who is to say the dirt is 100% accurate.  It's even easier to just have 50% accurate and fill in the rest to influence an election. The thing is information and the manipulation of it is just as powerful then the actual truth. I really do believe you have given this subject a lot of thought.

You can always investigate them to determine if there was a deal or not even if it were under the table. If the information is released through a news agency or an opponent I really dont care as long as the information is out to the public. If it's not accurate then that's just misleading or fake news and should not be released but thats hard to avoid. There are lots of fake news stories being shared on social media during elections anyway.

Woooow. That's so gross I need to take a shower.

Gadaffi didn't get killed by Obama, but by a mob of Lybians who finally saw a chance to get rid of him.

As for Syria, not so sure. The US (among others) were supporting the more secular and moderate rebels to fight both Assad and ISIL. And that worked pretty well until the Russians started bombing them instead of ISIL.

Also, while ISIL would have been absolutely barbaric, Assad ain't that much better. He's a secular barbarian compared to ISILs fundamentistic barbarism. Why do you think so many people in Syria were and are willing to fight against Assad? Certainly not because he's a good guy! ISIL is defeated, but the fighting is still going strong because Assad just ain't much better than ISIL would have been.

While we're at it, you criticise Obama for outbombing Bush in the middle east. You know who outbombs Obama several times over? Putin!

But again, comparing Bush to Obama here is very misplaced. Without Bush critically destabilizing the whole region by invading Irak, it wouldn't have come to this in the first place.

Since this started with the law, doesn't American law state you're to be considered innocent until proven guilty? How is guilt proven?

Well the current law is that a campaign can't take anything of value from a foreign national or a foreign country. So like money and dirt and probably other stuff too. I'm pretty sure that there are laws that make it so that campaigns have to record where the money is coming from so officials can always look into those records. Also ian investigation can be used to find evidence to prove someone guilty.

The other question to ask is, what exactly constitutes value in terms of info in this case? What if a campaign uses a tonne of foreign info that they deem as valuable against their opponent, only to end up losing to their opponent anyway? How valuable is dirt that is supposed to damage your opponent bad enough for yourself to secure victory, if you don't end up victorious? How do you quantify the value? Use the changes in polls, because they're so reliable?

So if you win and used foreign dirt you should pay for it because it must have helped you, but if you lose, the dirt obviously wasn't very valuable so it doesn't matter? If you lose and still have to pay for it, then obviously foreign dirt must be seen as extremely useful, so why does the law want to hide this?