How is Russia's posting ads on Facebook tantamount to "meddling" in the U.S. election?

[forkup]

Oh really? So you are willing to forego a national security issue because the public opinion, working on incomplete information, information that is comprehensive if you are willing to read it, influenced by political considerations isn't convinced it happened? This despite that 99.99999 percent of the people who do have all the information say it did (on both sides of the aisle, throughout the entire administration, and among all intelligence agencies)? Despite the fact that that 0.00001 percent of the people (POTUS) who say it didn't, have all the reason in the world to lie about it? And even he is constantly forced to say it did. The court system asks for REASONABLE doubt. You seem to be asking for beyond a shadow of a doubt, why?

Private servers do not qualify as a national security issue, imo. If it did constitute a national emergency then Obama was derelict in his duty to respond in a manner befitting one.

Like I said, the State is obligated to prove their case in a court of law. It's a long standing American tradition.

The USG also has a long tradition of misrepresenting facts to the American people in order to suit its foreign policy objectives. That is something that should remain at the forefront of all our consciousness despite how tempting it is to give in to partisan prejudices.

Hillary Clinton lost of her own accord.

Lol so first we have Buck saying that the act of espionage by a foreign government isn't election meddling and now we have someone claiming that espionage by a foreign government isn't a national security issue . I will say the same thing to you then. If you cannot establish a base line for a conversation there is no point in having one.

You're right, it is a national security issue but I am not foregoing it. I am waiting on the State to prosecute it. In a court, not the media. The politicizing of it coupled with the foreign policy implications make it imperative that we cast a cautious eye on the proceedings.

Good then we agree. So lets make an agreement. We will wait for the findings of the probe. We will not question it's findings and let the chips fall as they may. Agreed?

I am waiting for the findings but don't thing for a second that I won't cast a questioning eye on them.

So when you say you want the state to make it's case, you are reserving the right to not believe the case they are making?

 

[Tehon]

Private servers do not qualify as a national security issue, imo. If it did constitute a national emergency then Obama was derelict in his duty to respond in a manner befitting one.

Like I said, the State is obligated to prove their case in a court of law. It's a long standing American tradition.

The USG also has a long tradition of misrepresenting facts to the American people in order to suit its foreign policy objectives. That is something that should remain at the forefront of all our consciousness despite how tempting it is to give in to partisan prejudices.

Hillary Clinton lost of her own accord.

Lol so first we have Buck saying that the act of espionage by a foreign government isn't election meddling and now we have someone claiming that espionage by a foreign government isn't a national security issue . I will say the same thing to you then. If you cannot establish a base line for a conversation there is no point in having one.

You're right, it is a national security issue but I am not foregoing it. I am waiting on the State to prosecute it. In a court, not the media. The politicizing of it coupled with the foreign policy implications make it imperative that we cast a cautious eye on the proceedings.

Good then we agree. So lets make an agreement. We will wait for the findings of the probe. We will not question it's findings and let the chips fall as they may. Agreed?

I am waiting for the findings but don't thing for a second that I won't cast a questioning eye on them.

So when you say you want the state to make it's case, you are reserving the right to not believe the case they are making?

If not done in a court of law then yes, I reserve the right to my own judgement. As if it matters.

 

[forkup]

Lol so first we have Buck saying that the act of espionage by a foreign government isn't election meddling and now we have someone claiming that espionage by a foreign government isn't a national security issue . I will say the same thing to you then. If you cannot establish a base line for a conversation there is no point in having one.

You're right, it is a national security issue but I am not foregoing it. I am waiting on the State to prosecute it. In a court, not the media. The politicizing of it coupled with the foreign policy implications make it imperative that we cast a cautious eye on the proceedings.

Good then we agree. So lets make an agreement. We will wait for the findings of the probe. We will not question it's findings and let the chips fall as they may. Agreed?

I am waiting for the findings but don't thing for a second that I won't cast a questioning eye on them.

So when you say you want the state to make it's case, you are reserving the right to not believe the case they are making?

If not done in a court of law then yes, I reserve the right to my own judgement. As if it matters.

Your own judgement? So only when the case reinforces your believes will you accept them as valid? A bit convenient don't you think? Chances are the finding will be put before congress , who will then decide how to proceed. This means it will probably not come down to justice,as much as political expediency. Don't get me wrong unlike you, I will accept that this is how the constitution works. But lets then just agree that you then lose the right to bullshit me with saying you want the state to make it's case. Because it sure sounds like you just want the state to agree with you.

 

[Tehon]

You're right, it is a national security issue but I am not foregoing it. I am waiting on the State to prosecute it. In a court, not the media. The politicizing of it coupled with the foreign policy implications make it imperative that we cast a cautious eye on the proceedings.

Good then we agree. So lets make an agreement. We will wait for the findings of the probe. We will not question it's findings and let the chips fall as they may. Agreed?

I am waiting for the findings but don't thing for a second that I won't cast a questioning eye on them.

So when you say you want the state to make it's case, you are reserving the right to not believe the case they are making?

If not done in a court of law then yes, I reserve the right to my own judgement. As if it matters.

Your own judgement? So only when the case reinforces your believes will you accept them as valid? A bit convenient don't you think? Chances are the finding will be put before congress , who will then decide how to proceed. This means it will probably not come down to justice,as much as political expediency. Don't get me wrong unlike you, I will accept that this is how the constitution works. But lets then just agree that you then lose the right to bullshit me with saying you want the state to make it's case. Because it sure sounds like you just want the state to agree with you.

I like to think I'm a fair judge but I'm nobody anyway so don't lose any sleep over it.

My understanding of the constitution is that the special prosecutor need be approved by Congress. Did that happen in this case?

 

[PixieStix]

It seems to me that the claim that Russia "meddled" in our election is pretty much bullshit, unless you believe that posting ads on Facebook counts.

Read: Mueller indictment against 12 Russian spies for DNC hack
Seems to me these indictments are about more then posting facebook ads. In fact I don't believe facebook is even mentioned in this indictment. That was part of a different part of the effort.

Well, hacking into someone's computer system is a crime, it's also espionage. How is that akin to "meddling" in an election? And we were hearing about how the Russians had "meddle" in our elections for well over a year and long, long before these indictments came down. So, I'll ask again, how is posting ads on Facebook tantamount to election interference?

My questions EXACTLY

 

[Anathema]

Then you are asking for more proof then the justice department would. There is plenty of precedent for people being convicted without having been caught red handed. Would you find it reasonable for a murderer not being convicted despite DNA evidence, simply because you weren't there and the DNA could have been planted, without having any reason to suspect it was? Point one was irrelevant.?

I answer to a higher authority than the DOJ does. Therefore more evidence is required.

Without Point 1, there is no actual crime to be investigated so far as I’m concerned. If there was no direct impact on the election, there is no crime in my mind.

 

[impuretrash]

Russian social media efforts to impact the 2016 election outcome have been blown completely out of proportion. Same with the DNC hacks. The former was implemented rather clumsily and was drowned out by the din of millions of legitimate American accounts who were doing the same sorts of things. The latter was a big nothingburger, the hacks revealed is that politicians are two faced liars...woah what a revelation, who knew?!

The biased media conflates both the hack and the social media stuff alongside a handful of Trump officials meeting with Russian citizens (I didn't know it was illegal to talk to Russian people) under the umbrella of "collusion" so we don't have to think too hard about the underwhelming specifics.

 

[forkup]

Good then we agree. So lets make an agreement. We will wait for the findings of the probe. We will not question it's findings and let the chips fall as they may. Agreed?

I am waiting for the findings but don't thing for a second that I won't cast a questioning eye on them.

So when you say you want the state to make it's case, you are reserving the right to not believe the case they are making?

If not done in a court of law then yes, I reserve the right to my own judgement. As if it matters.

Your own judgement? So only when the case reinforces your believes will you accept them as valid? A bit convenient don't you think? Chances are the finding will be put before congress , who will then decide how to proceed. This means it will probably not come down to justice,as much as political expediency. Don't get me wrong unlike you, I will accept that this is how the constitution works. But lets then just agree that you then lose the right to bullshit me with saying you want the state to make it's case. Because it sure sounds like you just want the state to agree with you.

I like to think I'm a fair judge but I'm nobody anyway so don't lose any sleep over it.

My understanding of the constitution is that the special prosecutor need be approved by Congress. Did that happen in this case?

The constitution says no such thing.
28 CFR 600.1 - Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.
President Trump Is Wrong. The Mueller Probe Is Constitutional
I'm a nobody too, that doesn't mean I can't form opinions or question other people's opinions. That's kind of the point of this board isn't it? Anyways thanks for talking to me.

 

[forkup]

Then you are asking for more proof then the justice department would. There is plenty of precedent for people being convicted without having been caught red handed. Would you find it reasonable for a murderer not being convicted despite DNA evidence, simply because you weren't there and the DNA could have been planted, without having any reason to suspect it was? Point one was irrelevant.?

I answer to a higher authority than the DOJ does. Therefore more evidence is required.

Without Point 1, there is no actual crime to be investigated so far as I’m concerned. If there was no direct impact on the election, there is no crime in my mind.

-What is this higher authority?
-So what your saying is that hacking the DNC isn't a crime? As long as they didn't go after the election infrastructure itself they can do whatever they want? Hmms seems that higher authority you answer to seems kind of an asshole. In all fairness it would make election campaigns interesting. I can picture campaigns hiring hundreds of hackers to go after each others computer information. Who needs an actual argument when you can just try to find your opponents dick picks?

 

[forkup]

It seems to me that the claim that Russia "meddled" in our election is pretty much bullshit, unless you believe that posting ads on Facebook counts.

Read: Mueller indictment against 12 Russian spies for DNC hack
Seems to me these indictments are about more then posting facebook ads. In fact I don't believe facebook is even mentioned in this indictment. That was part of a different part of the effort.

Well, hacking into someone's computer system is a crime, it's also espionage. How is that akin to "meddling" in an election? And we were hearing about how the Russians had "meddle" in our elections for well over a year and long, long before these indictments came down. So, I'll ask again, how is posting ads on Facebook tantamount to election interference?

My questions EXACTLY

Question answered.

Espionage in an effort to undermine the ELECTION campaign of a particular candidate is MEDDLING in an election campaign. If you don't even agree to that there is no point in having a conversation.

 

[Anathema]

-What is this higher authority?
-So what your saying is that hacking the DNC isn't a crime? As long as they didn't go after the election infrastructure itself they can do whatever they want? Hmms seems that higher authority you answer to seems kind of an asshole. In all fairness it would make election campaigns interesting. I can picture campaigns hiring hundreds of hackers to go after each others computer information. Who needs an actual argument when you can just try to find your opponents dick picks?

That higher authority is the Divine power of the Universa.

Hacking is a crime. I have seen no evidence that Donald Trmp or anyone directed by him Hacked anyone.

US intelligence agencies have done the same thing in other countries for the same purpose for decades.

Until you folks can produce something the current POTUS actually did, or some way this materially and directly affect the outcome of the election, I’m not wasting my time on this issue.

 

[Tehon]

I am waiting for the findings but don't thing for a second that I won't cast a questioning eye on them.

So when you say you want the state to make it's case, you are reserving the right to not believe the case they are making?

If not done in a court of law then yes, I reserve the right to my own judgement. As if it matters.

Your own judgement? So only when the case reinforces your believes will you accept them as valid? A bit convenient don't you think? Chances are the finding will be put before congress , who will then decide how to proceed. This means it will probably not come down to justice,as much as political expediency. Don't get me wrong unlike you, I will accept that this is how the constitution works. But lets then just agree that you then lose the right to bullshit me with saying you want the state to make it's case. Because it sure sounds like you just want the state to agree with you.

I like to think I'm a fair judge but I'm nobody anyway so don't lose any sleep over it.

My understanding of the constitution is that the special prosecutor need be approved by Congress. Did that happen in this case?

The constitution says no such thing.
28 CFR 600.1 - Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.
President Trump Is Wrong. The Mueller Probe Is Constitutional
I'm a nobody too, that doesn't mean I can't form opinions or question other people's opinions. That's kind of the point of this board isn't it? Anyways thanks for talking to me.

I don't believe the Mueller probe is constitutional and nothing you present here alters my opinion. I started a discussion in the Constitution sub-forum if you are interested in continuing the conversation along this line.

And thank you, it was my pleasure.

 

[Nosmo King]

It seems to me that the claim that Russia "meddled" in our election is pretty much bullshit, unless you believe that posting ads on Facebook counts.

Read: Mueller indictment against 12 Russian spies for DNC hack
Seems to me these indictments are about more then posting facebook ads. In fact I don't believe facebook is even mentioned in this indictment. That was part of a different part of the effort.

The stuff Fox News won't tell ya. Trumpians live in an information bubble. If Hannity or Carlson doesn't tell them what to think, they just stick their head in the sand. Once you've been brainwashed into believing that the press is the enemy of the people, intellectual curiosity gets put on a dusty shelf.

 

[Kosh]

It is no different than CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NYTimes, Washington Post, Huffington Post, shilling for the far left!

 

[MarathonMike]

As long as we don't wake up the morning after election day and find out that Yakov Smirnoff is our new President, I'm good. Anyway it's up to us to protect our voting systems, is it not?

 

[candycorn]

Good then we agree. So lets make an agreement. We will wait for the findings of the probe. We will not question it's findings and let the chips fall as they may. Agreed?

I am waiting for the findings but don't thing for a second that I won't cast a questioning eye on them.

So when you say you want the state to make it's case, you are reserving the right to not believe the case they are making?

If not done in a court of law then yes, I reserve the right to my own judgement. As if it matters.

Your own judgement? So only when the case reinforces your believes will you accept them as valid? A bit convenient don't you think? Chances are the finding will be put before congress , who will then decide how to proceed. This means it will probably not come down to justice,as much as political expediency. Don't get me wrong unlike you, I will accept that this is how the constitution works. But lets then just agree that you then lose the right to bullshit me with saying you want the state to make it's case. Because it sure sounds like you just want the state to agree with you.

I like to think I'm a fair judge but I'm nobody anyway so don't lose any sleep over it.

My understanding of the constitution is that the special prosecutor need be approved by Congress. Did that happen in this case?

Where would you get that understanding from?

 

[candycorn]

Russian social media efforts to impact the 2016 election outcome have been blown completely out of proportion. Same with the DNC hacks. The former was implemented rather clumsily and was drowned out by the din of millions of legitimate American accounts who were doing the same sorts of things. The latter was a big nothingburger, the hacks revealed is that politicians are two faced liars...woah what a revelation, who knew?!

The biased media conflates both the hack and the social media stuff alongside a handful of Trump officials meeting with Russian citizens (I didn't know it was illegal to talk to Russian people) under the umbrella of "collusion" so we don't have to think too hard about the underwhelming specifics.

Its not illegal to talk to Russian people.
It is illegal to lie to Congress about it; as Jeff Sessions did.

Its also quite appropriate for questions to be asked when there are so many meetings between Russians and your campaign at the same time there is confirmed Russian meddling in our 2016 election.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Russian social media efforts to impact the 2016 election outcome have been blown completely out of proportion. Same with the DNC hacks. The former was implemented rather clumsily and was drowned out by the din of millions of legitimate American accounts who were doing the same sorts of things. The latter was a big nothingburger, the hacks revealed is that politicians are two faced liars...woah what a revelation, who knew?!

The biased media conflates both the hack and the social media stuff alongside a handful of Trump officials meeting with Russian citizens (I didn't know it was illegal to talk to Russian people) under the umbrella of "collusion" so we don't have to think too hard about the underwhelming specifics.

Its not illegal to talk to Russian people.
It is illegal to lie to Congress about it; as Jeff Sessions did.

Its also quite appropriate for questions to be asked when there are so many meetings between Russians and your campaign at the same time there is confirmed Russian meddling in our 2016 election.

Meddling......what does that mean ?

They ran adds ? That's meddling ?

Can we get any more stupid ?

 

[Tehon]

I am waiting for the findings but don't thing for a second that I won't cast a questioning eye on them.

So when you say you want the state to make it's case, you are reserving the right to not believe the case they are making?

If not done in a court of law then yes, I reserve the right to my own judgement. As if it matters.

Your own judgement? So only when the case reinforces your believes will you accept them as valid? A bit convenient don't you think? Chances are the finding will be put before congress , who will then decide how to proceed. This means it will probably not come down to justice,as much as political expediency. Don't get me wrong unlike you, I will accept that this is how the constitution works. But lets then just agree that you then lose the right to bullshit me with saying you want the state to make it's case. Because it sure sounds like you just want the state to agree with you.

I like to think I'm a fair judge but I'm nobody anyway so don't lose any sleep over it.

My understanding of the constitution is that the special prosecutor need be approved by Congress. Did that happen in this case?

Where would you get that understanding from?

The Constitution, Article 2 Section 2.

Constitutionality of Special Counsel

 

[jwoodie]

If you think the left pushes collusion then you should have no problem saying what we mean by the word.

What do YOU mean by the word?