Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

I mean. That's manafort, too, by and large. Lotta' people kinda' seem to do just that. Or at least what you had before. Maybe it won't change again, I'unno.

Well that's sort of what I'm getting at. people are quick to see Manafort's history in Ukraine as direct clear evidence of Russian political influence in the American elections.

But when the question posed is "did Manafort's US-Republican administration links mean America had a strong influence on elections he ran in Ukraine?", people are real quick to say how preposterous that is.

"But Yanukovych hired him" is seen as a valid hand-wave on his American links, whereas "But Trump hired him" is not seen as a valid dismissal of his Russian links. Which makes it a very clear double-standard, since we're talking about the same person.

[mainiac]

I'm going to side with Reelya here. If everything really is above board, what's the harm in letting them come in to look around?

Hey guys, if they are just sending humanitarian aid to Ukrainian cities, what's the harm in letting them through?

[Rolan7]

Except Clinton is saying the Russians are hacking us (her and 17 intelligence agencies) and Trump has pretty suspicious connections to them...
That's a pretty decent reason to not let them hang around our polling places.  They literally can't be trusted not to interfere (like we have).

Or they can, but in the "trust but verify" sense.  Which is diplomatic talk for "fuck off, we're exercising sovereignty due to reasonable doubt".

[Frumple]

... the harm? Voter intimidation and potential vote tampering are probably the biggest potential ones. It doesn't actually take much for an individual or small group to have disproportionate effect on the US election, if they hit the right spot (the bush/gore thing is a decent enough example of that -- it didn't take too large of an area getting messed with to more or less cause that entire set of bullshit).

Given that russia definitely seem to be intent on fucking with the election rather more explicitly than normal for that sort of thing, and as near as I can tell was oddly uninterested in sending observers last cycle, it kinda' smells of something scummy. If russia wants to retaliate and block US observers their next election, well, okay? I'unno about the rest of the country but there's only so much shit I have left to give on the subject of russian elections.

Also good gods I am not playing edit whackamole tonight. Also ninja'd, more or less. I give up. G'night folks.

[smjjames]

I mean. That's manafort, too, by and large. Lotta' people kinda' seem to do just that. Or at least what you had before. Maybe it won't change again, I'unno.

Well that's sort of what I'm getting at. people are quick to see Manafort's history in Ukraine as direct clear evidence of Russian political influence in the American elections.

But when the question posed is "did Manafort's US-Republican administration links mean America had a strong influence on elections he ran in Ukraine?", people are real quick to say how preposterous that is.

"But Yanukovych hired him" is seen as a valid hand-wave on his American links, whereas "But Trump hired him" is not seen as a valid dismissal of his Russian links. Which makes it a very clear double-standard, since we're talking about the same person.

Well, um, okay, let me ask you this, you're Australian, right? So, lets say if Tony Abbott or whoever hired an American (a private citizen) to head his or her campaign, would you see that as the US govenment meddling in Australian politics?

[Wolfhunter107]

I mean. That's manafort, too, by and large. Lotta' people kinda' seem to do just that. Or at least what you had before. Maybe it won't change again, I'unno.

Well that's sort of what I'm getting at. people are quick to see Manafort's history in Ukraine as direct clear evidence of Russian political influence in the American elections.

But when the question posed is "did Manafort's US-Republican administration links mean America had a strong influence on elections he ran in Ukraine?", people are real quick to say how preposterous that is.

"But Yanukovych hired him" is seen as a valid hand-wave on his American links, whereas "But Trump hired him" is not seen as a valid dismissal of his Russian links. Which makes it a very clear double-standard, since we're talking about the same person.

If you're unable to understand the difference between Manafort being hired independently of any US government involvement and Trump hiring a Putin crony during the middle of a concentrated Russian campaign to influence the election and get him into office, than I really don't know what to say.

[mainiac]

It doesn't actually take much for an individual or small group to have disproportionate effect on the US election,

Yeah, just hack a few voting machines and then have your observers tell news organizations that they saw ballots being destroyed.  A paper thin story but it doesn't need to be thick to stand up for people who will give it no scrutiny whatsoever.  Then you will have ugly weeks while the FEC goes through the certification process while the conspiracy wingnuts go crazy.  And probably a few people in this very thread would lap the conspiracy theories right up.

The question is does Russia think it's worth it?  It would mean permanent hostility from many US politicians but they've got that anyway.  The manufactured scandal bullshit wouldn't just be a pre-election thing, it would linger on and on.  Clinton distrusts Putin's government anyway.  Since she is going to be an enemy anyways they can try to keep her nice and distracted.

[Rolan7]

Honestly I'm less worried about direct vote tampering (although you do remember how vulnerable those Diebold machines were, right?) and more about what they'll *say*.

As in, when Clinton wins, they're certainly going to say that it was rigged.  Regardless of whether they were there.
If they *were* there, people might actually listen.

[Reelya]

I mean. That's manafort, too, by and large. Lotta' people kinda' seem to do just that. Or at least what you had before. Maybe it won't change again, I'unno.

Well that's sort of what I'm getting at. people are quick to see Manafort's history in Ukraine as direct clear evidence of Russian political influence in the American elections.

But when the question posed is "did Manafort's US-Republican administration links mean America had a strong influence on elections he ran in Ukraine?", people are real quick to say how preposterous that is.

"But Yanukovych hired him" is seen as a valid hand-wave on his American links, whereas "But Trump hired him" is not seen as a valid dismissal of his Russian links. Which makes it a very clear double-standard, since we're talking about the same person.

If you're unable to understand the difference between Manafort being hired independently of any US government involvement and Trump hiring a Putin crony during the middle of a concentrated Russian campaign to influence the election and get him into office, than I really don't know what to say.

This is what I'm talking about. Massive double-standard right there, makes not a lick of sense.

Manafort was a guy with extensive links to the governing party in the USA when he went to work for Yakunovich, having basically orchestrated three Republican presidents elections. But you've decided that in this case he was a free agent merely doing a hired job.

But when he got a job for Trump, then suddenly he's a clear "Putin Crony" despite not a lick of evidence he ever worked for any Russians whatsoever. He only worked for that one Ukrainian guy for a single election.

[mainiac]

Did he have large cash payments from a US government surrogate off the books?
Did he have large cash payments from a Russian government surrogate off the books?

Reelya, I feel like you aren't even trying to take a holistic view.

[smjjames]

I mean. That's manafort, too, by and large. Lotta' people kinda' seem to do just that. Or at least what you had before. Maybe it won't change again, I'unno.

Well that's sort of what I'm getting at. people are quick to see Manafort's history in Ukraine as direct clear evidence of Russian political influence in the American elections.

But when the question posed is "did Manafort's US-Republican administration links mean America had a strong influence on elections he ran in Ukraine?", people are real quick to say how preposterous that is.

"But Yanukovych hired him" is seen as a valid hand-wave on his American links, whereas "But Trump hired him" is not seen as a valid dismissal of his Russian links. Which makes it a very clear double-standard, since we're talking about the same person.

If you're unable to understand the difference between Manafort being hired independently of any US government involvement and Trump hiring a Putin crony during the middle of a concentrated Russian campaign to influence the election and get him into office, than I really don't know what to say.

This is what I'm talking about. Massive double-standard right there, makes not a lick of sense.

Manafort was a guys with extensive links to the governing party in the USA when he went to work for Yakunovich, having basically orchestrated three Republican presidents elections. Yeah, completely independent of any US government involvement, right there.

So he was "independently hired" by Yakunovich with no prior outside interference, when it suits you to interpret it that way. Yet, when he's also independently hired by Trump, suddenly he's a "Putin crony" despite never actually having worked for Putin in his life.

We humans are wierd. That's my only response to this.... I give up on this circular argument. Going to bed soon anyway.

Did he have large cash payments from a US government surrogate off the books?
Did he have large cash payments from a Russian government surrogate off the books?

Reelya, I feel like you aren't even trying to take a holistic view.

Yeah, come on, we know you're smarter than this Reelya.

[Reelya]

But still, I think how you're dividing things up is suspect.

Someone with extensive links to several US presidents - not a close connection at all. Basically, it was only like three US presidents that we know of, it's not like that would influence him.

Same person with links to specific politician in Ukraine - basically it's like he's got a hotline to The Kremlin, and entirely different country to the one he worked for.

One is a case of taking a very fine knife trying to dismiss connections, the other is a case of applying the broadest brush possible.

[misko27]

Manafort is no longer working for the Trump campaign, so who gives a shit?

[Reelya]

Because it's indicative of distorted thinking.

I was trying to elaborate how that looks from the outside. People tend to dismiss US influences overseas, with very specific dismissals: "oh but he wasn't on the US government payroll at the time he did those things, he merely worked for 3 different administrations before doing it. not a close connection at all!"

 whereas even fairly tenuous examples of foreigners influencing America tend to be inflated, to whoever is involved having some sort of hotline to the Kremlin, even if they involved entirely different countries to Russia. "he knew a guy who knew a guy who knew putin's barber!"

[mainiac]

Same person with links to specific politician in Ukraine - basically it's like he's got a hotline to The Kremlin.

Nobody is saying that.  However the man was receiving large off the books fundings from Russian intelligence.  If he was getting money from the CIA that would be equivalent.  Publicly declared ties to a US political party are a very different thing.

You are committing so many logical fallacies here.  Ambiguity.  Refuge in obscurity.  False equivalence.

With a complex subject no one can really convince you of anything.  There will always be some other detail to turn to and repeat the same arguments with new ammo.

"he knew a guy who knew a guy who knew putin's barber!"

Christ man.  It's not Putin's barber.  It's large off the books cash payments from Russian intelligence.

This is a shitty strawman.  It indicates a basic lack of respect for the other people in this conversation.