The US Politics |OT|

[jason1637]

Machiavellian said:

jason1637 said:

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.

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.