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.