Russian Influence, where is the beef?

[noel c.]

In debating with some of my liberal friends, who are otherwise reasonable on most subjects, a curious change has taken place in their broader political perspectives, which seem to track the anomalous election of Trump as a Republican.

First: There is a new irrational, and unspecific, fear of Russian “interference” with United State’s political processes at a time when the actual Russian footprint in the world is a mere shadow of its Soviet heyday. I contrast this with the pre-Gorbachev Russia that was the darling of FDR, and Elenor who saw soviet atrocities against its citizenry as a matter of “breaking a few eggs”, and sympathetic appeals for sparing Julius and Ethel Rosenberg came primarily from the American left.

Yet none on the left contemporaneously viewed Barry’s overt interference in Israeli political processes against  Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in the 2015 election, using resources established and developed with grant funds from the Obama State Department drew similar apprehension or disapproval.

Why has Russia become the dreaded enemy to liberals? In what specific ways do they interfere that bother you? I don’t dispute that all countries spy on each other, but the timing is curious to me.

Second: There is an apparent fear that Trump is going to steal the 2020 election along the lines of a Tammany Hall coup, or the “boss” style politics of Chicago... both Democratic phenomena. I concede that Trumpian populism is a democratic transplant into the Republican party, but given shrill assertions of presidential incompetence by the left, why do you fear he could be successful in such a maneuver at vote manipulation?

[Aris Katsaris]

Well if it makes you feel better, I've been talking about several Greek prime ministers on both the right (e.g. Kostas Karamanlis 2004-2009 and chief cause of Greek monetary collapse) and the left (e.g. Alexis Tsipras 2015-2019) being tools of Russia, for MUCH MUCH before Trump's election.

For a more important nation than mine, Gerhard Shroeder, chancellor of Germany from 1998 to 2005, immediately got a cozy position in Russia after he left German politics, and is possibly the most important pre-Trump example of people servile to Russia in prominent roles in Western politics.

If anything, the one good thing about Trump's election (and Brexit) was that Russia finally overreached, didn't bother just puppetteering smaller countries, but went all the way to the top -- helped put an anti-NATO far-rightwinger in America's leadership (a thing somewhat equivalent to when the Nazis where trying to put Charles Lindbergh in the presidency), and supported the anti-EU Brexiters.

Since Americans tend to be deaf dumb and blind about anything that doesn't involve their own nation, 2016 was *finally* the moment that Americans woke to the issue of Russian interference/sabotage, since they couldn't possibly care to see it anywhere outside America itself.

As for why it's the liberals who do it, well dude, currently Russia is the world leader of the far-right, *usually* helping isolationists and nationalists, rather than communists as it did during the Soviet Union -- and that's also the case in America. But, dude, again that's about America -- e.g. in locations where it's the other way around, and Russia still helps primarily left-wingers you might hear the right-wing opposition talk about Russian interference. (eg "Venezuela’s National Assembly leader Juan Guaido denounces Russia’s “intervention” in Venezuela"
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/andres-oppenheimer/article229717114.html)

Obviously in any country the side that'll talk about Russian interference is the side that's not benefitting from the Russian interference that's taking place.

[TheDeamon]

There is also the meta-item going on re:China.

China was feeling its oats lately, and that includes recently reviving claims on lands ceded to Russia after the Opium Wars(which includes Vladivostok).

China is in a mixed situation with Russia, they want to get to the point where they're not reliant on Russian support for military hardware, something which Russia seems to have recently withdrawn anyway.

But they also want Russia in a greatly weakened position so they can try to pull a land-grab on Russia in the near to medium term future. They could use the natural resources in that region.

[noel c.]

Aris,

“... helped put an anti-NATO far-rightwinger in America's leadership (a thing somewhat equivalent to when the Nazis where trying to put Charles Lindbergh in the presidency), and supported the anti-EU Brexiters.”

Without dwelling on how this “far-rightwinger” put Russia’s economy in the toilet, of pressured left-winger European governments to pay their NATO dues, what specific interference in American politics do you believe Russia imposed to elect Trump?

[TheDeamon]

Without dwelling on how this “far-rightwinger” put Russia’s economy in the toilet, of pressured left-winger European governments to pay their NATO dues, what specific interference in American politics do you believe Russia imposed to elect Trump?

Russian bot farms on social media(lol), and hacking of certain DNC people who evidently were involved in malfeasance as it turns out. (even bigger laugh)

[noel c.]

Deamon,

“But they also want Russia in a greatly weakened position so they can try to pull a land-grab on Russia in the near to medium term future.”

I do not doubt that China will weaken any nation, large or small, as a strategic device to promote nationalist expansion, but I don’t see any connection with Russian interference in international politics.

“Russian bot farms on social media(lol), and hacking of certain DNC people who evidently were involved in malfeasance as it turns out. (even bigger laugh)”

I was familiar with that, are those really the issues? The whole “needy Latino” breach of John Podesta’s Email account was hilarious, but hardly an “existential” attack upon democracy.

[TheDeamon]

Deamon,

“But they also want Russia in a greatly weakened position so they can try to pull a land-grab on Russia in the near to medium term future.”

I do not doubt that China will weaken any nation, large or small, as a strategic device to promote nationalist expansion, but I don’t see any connection with Russian interference in international politics.

The Democratic Party is pretty cozy with the CCP even now, and the Chinese don't want Trump re-elected. So China wants Russia's threat played up to the maximum extent possible as it helps them in their own goals.

[noel c.]

Deamon,

“The Democratic Party is pretty cozy with the CCP even now, and the Chinese don't want Trump re-elected. So China wants Russia's threat played up to the maximum extent possible as it helps them in their own goals.”

Are you saying that the Democratic Party is directly responsive to CCP instructions?

[Aris Katsaris]

Aris,

“... helped put an anti-NATO far-rightwinger in America's leadership (a thing somewhat equivalent to when the Nazis where trying to put Charles Lindbergh in the presidency), and supported the anti-EU Brexiters.”

Without dwelling on how this “far-rightwinger” put Russia’s economy in the toilet, of pressured left-winger European governments to pay their NATO dues, what specific interference in American politics do you believe Russia imposed to elect Trump?

Well, I've read e.g. (https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/democracy/reports/2018/12/17/464235/following-the-money/) how:
"Russian organization allegedly controlled by an oligarch close to Putin spent more than $1 million a month just on social media campaigns favoring Trump, according to the special counsel. A Russian American energy tycoon—who boasted to a Kremlin official in July 2016 of being “actively involved in Trump’s election campaign”—donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Trump Victory fund. And a company affiliated with a sanctioned Russian oligarch paid $1 million to Michael Cohen, then Trump’s personal lawyer, for unspecified services after the election. These and other transactions examined throughout the report establish that, during the campaign and presidential transition, Trump had several compromising financial entanglements with actors representing a hostile foreign power."

So, um, a standard method of boosting a politician in capitalist democracies, "gave money to him and campaigned in the social media in favour of him".

Hacking his opponents, also seems to have been a thing.

I mean are you arguing that these things didn't happen, that they don't show Russia's preference for Trump, or merely that they didn't affect the outcome of the election?

[noel c.]

Aris,

“I mean are you arguing that these things didn't happen, that they don't show Russia's preference for Trump, or merely that they didn't affect the outcome of the election?”

I read through your linked article, and noted among other things that it relies upon the discredited “Steel dossier”, commissioned by the Clinton campaign to a foreign national with a clearly expressed preference for Hillary in the 2016 election outcome.

John McCain is also cited early on for his opinion that Trump; “... abased himself … abjectly before a tyrant” in Helsinki“. This is the same John McCain who passed Steele’s anti-Trump dossier to leaker James Comey after the presidential election. By then, Steele had met several times with FBI, but had been terminated as an FBI source because he leaked to the news media.

In his book published in 2018, McCain claimed he had an ”obligation“ to pass the dossier on to Comey and he would even do it again, saying “Anyone who doesn’t like it can go to hell.”.

Well, no John, and I hope that you are in hell. Pimping a discredited opposition research paper to the FBI is not an act of patriotic zeal, but sour grapes from a loser
“who got caught“. Selling out his country was not a new experience for “Singing John”, as his Hanoi Hilton co-inmates referred to him.

Second, I noted a reference to a “company affiliated with a sanctioned Russian oligarch who paid $1 million to Michael Cohen, then Trump’s personal lawyer, for unspecified services after the election.“ We are left to conclude that Trump somehow benefited from the transaction. It is more credible to me that slimy Cohen pocketed the funds in exchange for influence peddling.

In reading the rest of the article I traced innuendo after innuendo until my eyes glazed over, all claiming need for “serious investigation”... as though the two year, 32 million dollar, Muller investigation manned by the likes of Andrew Weissmann, and a prosecutorial staff composed entirely of democrats, had never occurred.

So, in answer to your opening questions; I am arguing that these “things“ are unsupported, that they showed Russia's tendency to disrupt national cohesion via both the Trump, and Hillary campaigns, and that the effect that this had on outcome of the election was to divide America.

Russia’s actions likely had some bearing upon Trump’s subsequent hardline stance on curtailing Russian economic growth, as related by a source unsympathetic to Trump:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/opinion/white-house/397212-president-trump-is-tougher-on-russia-in-18-months-than-obama-in-eight%3famp

If there is a single quasi-accusation that you believe rises above the level of innuendo, I would be happy to go down that rabbit hole with you.

[wmLambert]

...these “things“ are unsupported, that they showed Russia's tendency to disrupt national cohesion via both the Trump, and Hillary campaigns, and that the effect that this had on outcome of the election was to divide America.

The logic behind Russia and China wanting to hurt Trump is evident. Is there any logic for them to support him? They invested a lot of money into Obama and Hillary, and Trump was on the outs in 2016. It most be worse now.

[DonaldD]

C.I.A. Reasserts Putin Is Likely Directing Election Influence Efforts to Aid Trump.

I know, I know, we wouldn't want facts to get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.  I also have no doubt that this information stands no chance against your partisan deflector shields and cognitive dissonance, any more than previous such analyses by the US intelligence services did.

[TheDeamon]

The logic behind Russia and China wanting to hurt Trump is evident. Is there any logic for them to support him? They invested a lot of money into Obama and Hillary, and Trump was on the outs in 2016. It most be worse now.

Putin wanting to support Trump? Yes. He's the clear anti-China candidate by a wide mile.

China wanting to support Trump? Snowballs chance in hell, they'd rather see Biden in office and return to Obama-esque policy positions regarding them.

[noel c.]

Donald,

I read your article, and this seems to be the crux of your point. :

“In a statement in August, William R. Evanina, the intelligence official in charge of election interference briefings, said Russia was trying to influence the election by denigrating Mr. Biden. Mr. Evanina cited information released by Mr. Derkach.”

So, Trump is pro Ukraine, and anti-China. However; the Biden parasitic scion, Beau, is on the take from both nations. Why should Putin want the basement dweller in the Whitehouse, even if Trump is pounding his butt economically?

I really don’t see significance in your link.

[DonaldD]

That's OK - you don't need to. Everybody aside from wmLambert can.

[Aris Katsaris]

that they showed Russia's tendency to disrupt national cohesion via both the Trump, and Hillary campaigns, and that the effect that this had on outcome of the election was to divide America

So um, you do agree Russian interference occurred, and was significant, and caused harm to America?

So instead of asking why Russia has become the dreaded enemy to "liberals"... shouldn't you be asking why it's not the enemy for the supposedly patriotic conservatives?

[noel c.]

Donald,

“Everybody aside from wmLambert can.”

And what would “everybody aside from wmLambert” be seeing; a trustworthy Biden negotiating team?

Trump is a known quantity that is about as predictable as a Rolex. Russian’s, and most other world leaders, respect that, because it leads to stability. The Biden graft machine is dangerous to even its allies.

Aris,

“So um, you do agree Russian interference occurred, and was significant, and caused harm to America?“

I stipulated in the beginning that all countries exert what influence they can upon other nations, although perhaps not as aggressively against allies as Barry did. I do not agree that their interference was significant, or particularly harmful.

“So instead of asking why Russia has become the dreaded enemy to "liberals"... shouldn't you be asking why it's not the enemy for the supposedly patriotic conservatives?”

No, because I can answer that question for you. The Soviet Union was a military superpower, and an economic third-world power. For seventy years the problem for us was that, for reasons known only to them, communist Russia thought that we wanted to destroy, rather than contain, them. Paradoxically, that perception led to an arms race that did destroy them. Now they are an oil-economy without customers, and if Trump has his way will not be selling natural gas to you either. They cannot even equip their own military, which incidentally suffers from horrendous demographics. They have no future, and are not a near or long-term threat to the United States.

China is a short term threat, but is also paying for the “one child” Maoist infanticide. They killed all of their little girls, and the “little emperors” populating the CCP military are going to be experiencing a serious culling. It is just how things work. We are sure to accommodate them.

[DonaldD]

I'm just going to leave this here:

Trump is a known quantity that is about as predictable as a Rolex. Russian’s, and most other world leaders, respect that, because it leads to stability.

[noel c.]

Donald,

You left out:

“The Biden graft machine is dangerous to even its allies.”

[DonaldD]

Sure, that's just sad conspiracy stuff.  The other bit, though, that was comedy gold.

[noel c.]

Donald,

Rather than sniping from tall grass, why don’t you make an attempt to cite an example of Russian interference in either the 2016, or 2020, election that justifies leftist paranoia of Putin?

[DonaldD]

To what end?  If you don't believe the US intelligence services, the CIA, Senate hearings... nothing I post here, as evidenced above, is going to give you public pause.

[noel c.]

Donald,

“To what end?  If you don't believe the US intelligence services, the CIA, Senate hearings... nothing I post here, as evidenced above, is going to give you public pause.”

That is at least a start.

Beginning with the CIA, what did Director John Brennan come up with that he did not ultimately consume as a meal of crow?

[Greg Davidson]

Wow. Just wow.

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf

[Fenring]

The Democratic Party is pretty cozy with the CCP even now, and the Chinese don't want Trump re-elected. So China wants Russia's threat played up to the maximum extent possible as it helps them in their own goals.

Wouldn't it be hilarious if the Trump/Russia messaging about how Trump's team are Russian patsies is in fact a Chinese scheme to destabilize both Trump (as he's anti-China and campaigned as such) and Russia (through generating intense American animosity), thereby making the media sources Chinese patsies?

I'm especially intrigued by this possibility due to a piece of anecdotal trivia, which is that a Republican person of significant knowledge told me years ago that the Democrats were in bed with China. At the time I scoffed, and truthfully I don't research this and so know nothing about it, but I was reminded of that remark just now.

On the balance if this were true it would actually alarm me, since China is much more powerful than Russia, actually operates an informational lockdown system far in excess of Russia (which in comparison to China has a free press), has zero regard for human rights, and has been challenged by the West recently enough that the Trans-Pacific Partnership was most likely an unofficial economic declaration of war (i.e. creating a new economic partnership excluding China).

The one thing in this theory I wouldn't be clear on is why China and Russia would join together in the BRICS banking system if in turn they were significantly opposed to each other politically and territorially. One would think that they would do better joining forces against the West rather than waging wars on multiple fronts.

[DonaldD]

It would be hilarious because of just how many Russian government officials, oligarchs, and information agents China would need to have paid off to do their dirty work, and then once they were outed by US intelligence, how Russia neglected to take any actions against them for working for the Chinese...

Of course, Russia is well known for allowing their people to work for foreign entities, against the country's interests, without, you know, poisoning them publicly.

That is some powerful conspiracy weed you're smoking there.
 

[noel c.]

GregD,

“Wow. Just wow.”

I don’t have time for 966 page Easter egg hunts. Do you have a citation verifying Trump collusion in Russian activities aimed at sabotaging Hillary?

[noel c.]

... Or even an example of DNC server hacking that did anything other than embarrass party operatives like John Podesta in revealing racist comments about Latinos? I seem to recall persistent non-cooperation by the DNC with FBI efforts to investigate Russian interference.

[Aris Katsaris]

I stipulated in the beginning that all countries exert what influence they can upon other nations,

So has Germany, France, Italy, UK, Spain, Japan, Brazil, Canada, Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc, done similar acts (funding political campaigns in social media, hacking enemy politicians) to favour one political side or the other (or both) in the United States, or has it just been Russia?

[Lloyd Perna]

https://time.com/5891136/prince-harry-meghan-markle-vote-2020-election/

How about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex?

[Aris Katsaris]

"How about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex?"

Not a government.

[Lloyd Perna]

They are in fact part of the Government of the UK.

[DonaldD]

https://time.com/5891136/prince-harry-meghan-markle-vote-2020-election/

How about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex?

Ah, so you admit Russian's actions are wrong, that the US should protect itself, that not protecting the country is a failing of the current administration, but you're just exercising your right to what-about it.  Or did you mean something else when you posted this?

As Aris mentioned, though - they are not a government, and are not working for a foreign government.

Also, Meghan Markle is even a citizen of the USA.

[Aris Katsaris]

They are in fact part of the Government of the UK.

I don't think they could reasonably be called that, no.

From the entire monarchical system of the UK probably only the Queen herself might be reasonably called that. Not just anyone with a title, unless you're gonna argue that Sir Ian McKellen is also part of the government of the UK, just because he has a title.

[Lloyd Perna]

https://time.com/5891136/prince-harry-meghan-markle-vote-2020-election/

How about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex?

Ah, so you admit Russian's actions are wrong, that the US should protect itself, that not protecting the country is a failing of the current administration, but you're just exercising your right to what-about it.  Or did you mean something else when you posted this?

As Aris mentioned, though - they are not a government, and are not working for a foreign government.

Also, Meghan Markle is even a citizen of the USA.

I admitted nothing.  Don't put words in my mouth.  Aris asked for examples of other countries doing the same.  I provided one.

Markle is both a citizen and a member of the UK Royal Family.  It is possible to be a us citizen and a member of a foreign government at the same time.

[Lloyd Perna]

They are in fact part of the Government of the UK.

I don't think they could reasonably be called that, no.

From the entire monarchical system of the UK probably only the Queen herself might be reasonably called that. Not just anyone with a title, unless you're gonna argue that Sir Ian McKellen is also part of the government of the UK, just because he has a title.

They are members of the Royal Family which is the Monarchy part of the Constitutional Monarchy of the United Kingdom.  Which is a lot different from a Knight or any other honorary non-royal title.  If they were to give up their titles, they yes, they would no longer be part of the government. But, they have very deliberately chosen not to do that. 

[DonaldD]

Markle is both a citizen and a member of the UK Royal Family.  It is possible to be a us citizen and a member of a foreign government at the same time.

Are you suggesting that citizens of the USA don't have the right to speak on political issues?

Also, suggesting that the Sussexes are acting as agents of the UK government (or for that matter, the Canadian government) is disingenuous at best.  Are you suggesting they are acting on the directions of the elected government, or of government offices?  I don't really think you believe that.

[Lloyd Perna]

I didn't suggest that either of them don't have the right to speak.  They certainly do.  Again, keep it up with the strawman arguments, you have nothing else to work with.

Whether they are working on orders from above is irrelevant, They are representatives of the Goverment and they are attempting to influence our politics.  Stop moving the goalposts.

[noel c.]

Aris,

“So has Germany, France, Italy, UK, Spain, Japan, Brazil, Canada, Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc, done similar acts (funding political campaigns in social media, hacking enemy politicians) to favour one political side or the other (or both) in the United States, or has it just been Russia?”

In recent history, the most blatant funding of a political campaign by a foreign government, was during Barry’s tenure as president. He diverted taxpayer dollars, and assigned political advisors to Israel in an effort to unseat Benjamin Netanyahu. We do not talk about it now for a number of reasons including:

- It failed miserably.
- It was perpetrated by a Democrat.
- Netanyahu benefited politically.
- Israel’s worldwide status was enhanced.

The more subtle acts of espionage undershoot headlines, but Donna Brazil was apparently informed that Britain’s MI-6 was on the Clinton team during the 2016 campaign, and she was advised by DNC attorneys that she “didn’t need to know” details. In actuality, Christopher Steele (former head of the Russia desk) was trading on his past MI-6 affiliation, and being paid by the Comey FBI $96,000/year for his troubles. Subsequently : “A London judge... ordered the former British spy Christopher Steele’s intelligence firm to pay damages to two Russian bankers, finding that Mr. Steele had reported inaccurately in his discredited 2016 dossier on Donald Trump that the pair had arranged payoffs to Vladimir Putin during the 1990s.“

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/christopher-steeles-firm-ordered-in-u-k-to-pay-damages-to-russian-bankers-11594247095

Barry also monitored the phone calls of 35 NATO leaders through the NSA data collection center in Utah.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/24/nsa-surveillance-world-leaders-calls

Do those qualify?

I cannot cite anything done by France, Italy, Spain, Japan, Canada, or Saudi Arabia specifically. It is a given that Israel knows more about European governments than their citizens do, and uses that knowledge to further their national interests.

It is in the nature of international espionage to evade public scrutiny. Obama was just too third-world in his tactics to avoid getting exposed by Edward Snowden, and threw a grand-mal tantrum over resulting Wikileaks publicity.

[DonaldD]

Whether they are working on orders from above is irrelevant, They are representatives of the Goverment and they are attempting to influence our politics.  Stop moving the goalposts.

So that is your misunderstanding.

Nobody is claiming that people talking about the US election is a problem.  That was a strawman built to deflect from the actual issue; and seemingly, it worked in your case.

The actual issue, and it always has been the issue, is Russia (and China if you like) a foreign country, attacking the US in a concerted and directed effort (in this case, its electoral processes). 

[noel c.]

Donald,

“The actual issue, and it always has been the issue, is Russia (and China if you like) a foreign country, attacking the US in a concerted and directed effort (in this case, its electoral processes).“

... And never a Democratic Party issue, correct?

[DonaldD]

You may be outraged that the Russians exposed the DNC's lies. I am outraged that they lied and then tried to blame Russia for the consequences of their duplicity

You keep going on about the hack as if the hack itself was particularly important.  It is not, except in so much as it is a part of Russia's current arsenal being used to destabilize western opponents.  The primary issue, as I have been repeating, is Russian involvement in sabotaging democratic elections.  Using Wikileaks was only one tool, though particularly effective in the USA.  Russia's fingerprints are all over social media, fake news and financing of anti-western establishment entities. 

Without acknowledging this primary issue, and if people allow partisanship to blind themselves to the actual attacks on their democracies, that will lead to Russia and other bad actors to continue to wield unconscionable amounts of influence on western democracies.

Do we really want Vladimir Putin having the power to sway elections and effectively choose successors in western countries?

It's not even a purely USA issue.

[Aris Katsaris]

I didn't suggest that either of them don't have the right to speak.  They certainly do.  Again, keep it up with the strawman arguments, you have nothing else to work with.

Whether they are working on orders from above is irrelevant, They are representatives of the Goverment and they are attempting to influence our politics.  Stop moving the goalposts.

I asked you about countries, and you're talking about individuals who (in your own ignorant delusions and nowhere else) are "representatives of their governments" because they have the title of Duke and Duchess. You're the one moving the goalposts, or you're utterly ignorant about how the UK government works.

But sure, okay, I'm worried about Russia influencing politics, and you're worried about the Duke of Essex influencing politics. Even so, however, and let's imagine for a sec that he was indeed the sovereign of his own nation or whatever, it seems to me that he's trying to influence politics openly by public statements, while Russia is trying to influence politics covertly, via espionage, and secretly funding campaigns.

Aris,

“So has Germany, France, Italy, UK, Spain, Japan, Brazil, Canada, Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc, done similar acts (funding political campaigns in social media, hacking enemy politicians) to favour one political side or the other (or both) in the United States, or has it just been Russia?”

In recent history, the most blatant funding of a political campaign by a foreign government, was during Barry’s tenure as president. He diverted taxpayer dollars, and assigned political advisors to Israel in an effort to unseat Benjamin Netanyahu.

That's the United States affecting another country, not another country affecting the United States. Yeah, USA is an imperialist nation, you try to affect the politics of other countries, we know, EVERYONE knows. The question was about the other way around, whether there are other countries (besides Russia) who do that to you.

[Lloyd Perna]

I didn't suggest that either of them don't have the right to speak.  They certainly do.  Again, keep it up with the strawman arguments, you have nothing else to work with.

Whether they are working on orders from above is irrelevant, They are representatives of the Goverment and they are attempting to influence our politics.  Stop moving the goalposts.

I asked you about countries, and you're talking about individuals who (in your own ignorant delusions and nowhere else) are "representatives of their governments" because they have the title of Duke and Duchess. You're the one moving the goalposts, or you're utterly ignorant about how the UK government works.

But sure, okay, I'm worried about Russia influencing politics, and you're worried about the Duke of Essex influencing politics. Even so, however, and let's imagine for a sec that he was indeed the sovereign of his own nation or whatever, it seems to me that he's trying to influence politics openly by public statements, while Russia is trying to influence politics covertly, via espionage, and secretly funding campaigns.

Aris,

“So has Germany, France, Italy, UK, Spain, Japan, Brazil, Canada, Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc, done similar acts (funding political campaigns in social media, hacking enemy politicians) to favour one political side or the other (or both) in the United States, or has it just been Russia?”

In recent history, the most blatant funding of a political campaign by a foreign government, was during Barry’s tenure as president. He diverted taxpayer dollars, and assigned political advisors to Israel in an effort to unseat Benjamin Netanyahu.

That's the United States affecting another country, not another country affecting the United States. Yeah, USA is an imperialist nation, you try to affect the politics of other countries, we know, EVERYONE knows. The question was about the other way around, whether there are other countries (besides Russia) who do that to you.

Ok, your argument is reduced to calling me names.  I think that speaks to your ignorance, not mine.

[noel c.]

Aris,

“That's the United States affecting another country, not another country affecting the United States. Yeah, USA is an imperialist nation, you try to affect the politics of other countries, we know, EVERYONE knows. The question was about the other way around, whether there are other countries (besides Russia) who do that to you.”

I do not think Donald knows, unless he is being hypocritically silent, but yes, other countries do try to influence our elections.

Israel, with some justification :

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/israel-us-elections-intervention-russia-noam-chomsky-donald-trump-a8470481.html%3famp

Britain:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-50752217

I have some difficulty in taking Russian “interference” seriously. See their Facebook ads. :

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/us/politics/russia-2016-election-facebook.amp.html

If that doesn’t persuade you to “vote for Jesus”, what possibly can? Also; note the attack ad on Trump.

[noel c.]

For Netanyahu video. :

https://youtu.be/wRf1cdw4IAY

[OrneryMod]

Criticism of ideas is welcome and encouraged here, but please remember not to attack one another personally.

[noel c.]

Ornery Mod,

“Criticism of ideas is welcome and encouraged here, but please remember not to attack one another personally.“

Possibly you have become inured to the communication style of a few of your regulars, but does calling another poster a “liar”, multiple times, constitute a “personal attack”? If so, I think that you need to monitor Y-22, and Donald, a little more closely.

Personally, I can brush it off. However, if you are going to enforce rules of etiquette, please be consistent.

[yossarian22c]

Ornery Mod,

“Criticism of ideas is welcome and encouraged here, but please remember not to attack one another personally.“

Possibly you have become inured to the communication style of a few of your regulars, but does calling another poster a “liar”, multiple times, constitute a “personal attack”? If so, I think that you need to monitor Y-22, and Donald, a little more closely.

Personally, I can brush it off. However, if you are going to enforce rules of etiquette, please be consistent.

Who did I call a liar? Wasn't you, I once said you posted a lie because you posted something untrue. Maybe there was no intent on your part, maybe you were just factually challenged.

The search function (limited as it is) shows the only person I've called a liar on this forum is Trump.

[noel c.]

Y-22,

“Who did I call a liar? Wasn't you, I once said you posted a lie because you posted something untrue. Maybe there was no intent on your part, maybe you were just factually challenged.”

So, posting something that you believe to be “untrue”, is equivalent to posting a “lie”, but the poster is not thereby a “liar”. You may not have intended to call me a liar, perhaps you are just linguistically challenged.

I will make a deal with you; be respectful and I will return the courtesy. I can roll either way.