What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

President Obama And Influencing Canadian Elections (1 Viewer)

Joe Bryant

Guide
Staff member
From President Obama https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/1184528998669389824?s=20 

I was proud to work with Justin Trudeau as President. He's a hard-working, effective leader who takes on big issues like climate change. The world needs his progressive leadership now, and I hope our neighbors to the north support him for another term.




Quick defense from journalist B. Allen-Ebrahimian https://twitter.com/BethanyAllenEbr/status/1184529874377236481?s=20

For those of us concerned about foreign govt interference in our politics, let me give this tweet an example as a baseline of what is NOT interference. It is perfectly fine for prominent former officials like Obama to express an election outcome preference.


What do you guys think?

 
It’s fine. And it happens all the time. Trump supported Netanyahu and Boris Johnson. Obama spoke out against Brexit. 

 
I can't answer the question until we can confirm if Obama had a secret server in Benghazi that contained deleted emails where he offered Trudeau a quid pro quo involving his endorsement in exchange for giving Uranium One stock to his daughter.

 
B. Allen-Ebrahimian added more posts in the thread:

Why am I saying this? Because as fear of foreign interference grows, I see analysts and reporters pointing to speech by foreign govts & officials and calling it "political interference." Not everything is interference.


The transparent expression of normal political preferences is not interference. Using public speech to try to convince foreign nationals to vote one way or another is NOT interference. Interference is covert, or coercive, or corrupt.


Passing laws to try to change the political behavior of people in other countries also isn't interference. It's a normal part of the business of states. We do it all the time -- The Uighur Human Rights Act, Tibet Act, basically any kind of economic sanction ever.


It is interference if it is done illegally, or covertly, or disguised to make it appear as though it comes from a domestic origin. End thread.

 
what an odd false equivalency......
Who's making a false equivalency? 

It was a story in the Now This newsletter today:

3. Barack Obama endorses Justin Trudeau in upcoming election

Meanwhile, over in Canada and in a seemingly alternate universe, former President Barack Obama endorsed Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for re-election, just days ahead of the October 21 election. In a tweet, Obama said, “I was proud to work with Justin Trudeau as President. He's a hard-working, effective leader who takes on big issues like climate change. The world needs his progressive leadership now, and I hope our neighbors to the north support him for another term.” It’s notable because Obama has only occasionally spoken about current politics in his post-presidency life. Trudeau, the leader of the Canadian Liberal Party, is running against Conservative Party Leader Andrew Scheer and New Democratic Party Leader Jagmeet Singh (get to know Singh here).

Know This

Scholars and reporters are using this opportunity to draw a distinction between what counts as foreign interference in elections and what doesn’t. The free expression on social media of a former president that was not bought or paid for is not interference; actual interference would have to be “covert, coercive or corrupt.”


I thought it was interesting and thought I'd see what you folks thought.

That is somehow me making a false equivalency? 

 
It’s not a straw man. If you click on the link to Obama’s tweet, there actually are people in the comments (Jack Posobiec, for example) accusing Obama of meddling in a foreign election.

That’s not what meddling is, as explained in the second link.

I believe Putin publicly expressed a preference for Trump over Hillary in the 2016 election. That’s totally fine. That would never lead to sanctions, much less criminal charges. It’s totally normal and expected and even appropriate.

That wasn’t a problem and it wasn’t meddling. The improper meddling was when Russians illegally hacked into the DNC’s servers and released the contents through wikileaks, and formed a troll farm to disseminate disinformation, all calculated to affect our elections.

That was the stuff that was bad.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It’s not a straw man. If you click on the link to Obama’s tweet, there actually are people (Jack Posobiec, for example) accusing Obama of meddling in a foreign election.

That’s not what meddling is, as explained in the second link.

I believe Putin publicly expressed a preference for Trump over Hillary in the 2016 election. That’s totally fine. That would never lead to sanctions, much less criminal charges. It’s totally normal and expected and even appropriate.

That wasn’t a problem and it wasn’t meddling. The improper meddling was when Russians illegally hacked into the DNC’s servers and released the contents through wikileaks, and formed a troll farm to disseminate disinformation, all calculated to affect our elections.

That was the stuff that was bad.
Plus... the big surprise knock right now on Trudeau is his brown face debacle. Obama is a private citizen who is a person of color.  That’s really what the statement is probably about. 

 
It’s not a straw man. If you click on the link to Obama’s tweet, there actually are people (Jack Posobiec, for example) accusing Obama of meddling in a foreign election.

That’s not what meddling is, as explained in the second link.

I believe Putin publicly expressed a preference for Trump over Hillary in the 2016 election. That’s totally fine. That would never lead to sanctions, much less criminal charges. It’s totally normal and expected and even appropriate.

That wasn’t a problem and it wasn’t meddling. The improper meddling was when Russians illegally hacked into the DNC’s servers and released the contents through wikileaks, and formed a troll farm to disseminate disinformation, all calculated to affect our elections.

That was the stuff that was bad.
Changing his Twitter avatar to Trudeau was a bit over the line though.

 
It may be the thread title that is causing the confusion because there is an implication that Obama is influencing the Canadian election. Foreign influence in elections nowadays (thanks to Russia and not just in this country) is far more serious than an endorsing tweet by a former President. 

 
Who's making a false equivalency? 

It was a story in the Now This newsletter today:

I thought it was interesting and thought I'd see what you folks thought.

That is somehow me making a false equivalency? 
Joe, I don’t know if it was your intent, but this is actually quite instructive and illustrative of what, on the one hand, is an example ethical, above-board behavior juxtaposed with, on the other hand, supporting, encouraging, and sponsoring meddling in foreign elections.  

 
Elevating this nonsense as some sort of equivalence to what Russia did in 2016. This will be parroted by certain people whenever Russian influence is discussed.
It was a story in the Now This news today. I'm not "elevating" and I'm not making any "equivalence". I mentioned a story and asked what people thought of it. 

 
Joe, I don’t know if it was your intent, but this is actually quite instructive and illustrative of what, on the one hand, is an example ethical, above-board behavior juxtaposed with, on the other hand, supporting, encouraging, and sponsoring meddling in foreign elections.  
That was my thought too. I think the issue could use some illustration. 

I'm honestly baffled at the accusations.

 
It was a story in the Now This news today. I'm not "elevating" and I'm not making any "equivalence". I mentioned a story and asked what people thought of it. 
This feels like such a cop-out.  You read, what, dozens of tid bits every day?  And you made an editorial decision that somehow this was relevant to post and generate a conversation.  I’m genuinely curious why you decided to post this and why it means something. Why specifically did this catch your attention?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This feels like such a cop-out.  You read, what, dozens of tid bits every day?  And you made an editorial decision that somehow this was relevant to post and generate a conversation.  I’m genuinely curious why you decided to post this and why it means something. Why specifically did this catch your attention?
Sorry but I don't have time to not mean what I write. If after almost 20 years you don't believe I mean what I say then that's beyond disappointing. 

I saw the news bit, thought it was interesting and posted here. I hate to disappoint anyone, but my "editorial decision" is about as thoughtful as "this looks interesting and I'll ask the board what they think". I don't do it as much during the season. Definitely won't do it if people don't believe what I say or accuse me of being an alias or call my honest answer a cop out. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This feels like such a cop-out.  You read, what, dozens of tid bits every day?  And you made an editorial decision that somehow this was relevant to post and generate a conversation.  I’m genuinely curious why you decided to post this and why it means something. Why specifically did this catch your attention?
I thought he just explained this. 

 
Sorry but I don't have time to not mean what I write. If after almost 20 years you don't believe what I say then that's beyond disappointing. 

I saw the news bit, thought it was interesting and posted here. I hate to disappoint anyone, but my "editorial decision" is about as thoughtful as "this looks interesting and I'll ask the board what they think". I don't do it as much during the season. Definitely won't do it if people don't believe what I say or call my honest answer a cop out. 
I’m guess I don’t understand why you thought it was “interesting.”  Your use of the phrase “influencing” seemed deliberate.

 
Joe doesn’t pay as much attention to politics as many of us do.  I think he’s genuinely interested in the difference. 
That’s fair.  And, all I’m asking for is a little explainer on the editorializing.  First Obama claimed in title to be “influencing” the Canadian election.  Strange verb choice.  In the OP there is a repost of Obama’s tweet in support of Trudeau and then—sudden escalation—a second post of a tweet in “defense” of Obama.  Defense of what?

My concern isn’t that Joe is being dishonest.  But, it clearly seems there’s an embedded issue of interest here that, when asked to clarify, I didn’t feel he was being particularly forthcoming.

 
This doesn't seem all that difficult guys.  Have the Trump supporters really gotten to us with their absurdity that we assume that's the intent of everyone?  Really?  Seems obvious to me that Joe saw the tweet and thread to follow and wanted to know what we thought about what Obama was doing and if it rose to the level of "meddling".  We know that stuff like this is absolutely going to be brought up by Trump and his supporters from now on as "whataboutism".  It's as predictable as the sun rising and setting every single day so I think it's good to get examples of things that are ok to compare to things that haven't been under this administration.  The list of differences has been made already so I'll spare repeating them, but this is obviously not close to what Russia did and is being allowed to continue to do with respect to our elections and elections around the world.

 
It’s not a straw man. If you click on the link to Obama’s tweet, there actually are people in the comments (Jack Posobiec, for example) accusing Obama of meddling in a foreign election.

That’s not what meddling is, as explained in the second link.

I believe Putin publicly expressed a preference for Trump over Hillary in the 2016 election. That’s totally fine. That would never lead to sanctions, much less criminal charges. It’s totally normal and expected and even appropriate.

That wasn’t a problem and it wasn’t meddling. The improper meddling was when Russians illegally hacked into the DNC’s servers and released the contents through wikileaks, and formed a troll farm to disseminate disinformation, all calculated to affect our elections.

That was the stuff that was bad.
The problem is that people like Posobiec have been given a national voice by POTUS and conspiracy theories, rumors, and outright  lies have been normalized rather than shunned.

 
This doesn't seem all that difficult guys.  Have the Trump supporters really gotten to us with their absurdity that we assume that's the intent of everyone?  Really?  Seems obvious to me that Joe saw the tweet and thread to follow and wanted to know what we thought about what Obama was doing and if it rose to the level of "meddling".  We know that stuff like this is absolutely going to be brought up by Trump and his supporters from now on as "whataboutism".  It's as predictable as the sun rising and setting every single day so I think it's good to get examples of things that are ok to compare to things that haven't been under this administration.  The list of differences has been made already so I'll spare repeating them, but this is obviously not close to what Russia did and is being allowed to continue to do with respect to our elections and elections around the world.
Good post.  And my only point is when Joe chose the verb “influencing” in the thread title—and absent any explainer in his post that followed—I don’t think interpretation and intent were obvious at all.

In the most benign way, we all are trying to influence an election, whether it’s discussions at dinner table with family, debates over drinks with friends, posting on message boards, and ultimately with our vote.  But, because of Russia’s coordination with US persons to subvert recent elections, the word “influence” takes on a more ominous meaning and context that our everyday activities and advocacy in influencing outcomes doesn’t.  I *think* Joe eventually sort of cleared that up, I guess.  I’m not really sure.  But, the way the OP was framed left it wide open for conflation and misinterpretation, deviating markedly from what Joe later explained (I think) was not his intent.

 
what an odd false equivalency......
Yeah. It’s almost like we WANT to fuel those who purposefully conflate, misinform, and outright lie. 
 

FWIW, I don’t hold it against the Russians or anyone else for TRYING to influence our elections, be it straightforward and above board or through less than honest means. I DO hold it against those sworn to uphold and protect our nation and constitution for at best looking through other way, and apparently at times aiding and abetting our historical enemies by putting self, party, and power above our collective well being. 
 

In this way, I don’t blame Putin - he wants to create chaos and instability here in the US.  I blame Trump, the GOP, and those shortsighted and selfish enough to allow it to happen and even assist in the efforts in return for power and party  - along with those who support and don’t stand against these unpatriotic, treacherous leaches (and at times, criminals). 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Good post.  And my only point is when Joe chose the verb “influencing” in the thread title—and absent any explainer in his post that followed—I don’t think interpretation and intent were obvious at all.

In the most benign way, we all are trying to influence an election, whether it’s discussions at dinner table with family, debates over drinks with friends, posting on message boards, and ultimately with our vote.  But, because of Russia’s coordination with US persons to subvert recent elections, the word “influence” takes on a more ominous meaning and context that our everyday activities and advocacy in influencing outcomes doesn’t.  I *think* Joe eventually sort of cleared that up, I guess.  I’m not really sure.  But, the way the OP was framed left it wide open for conflation and misinterpretation, deviating markedly from what Joe later explained (I think) was not his intent.
I think he's just trying to toughen us up for what coming our way GB  :lol:   You know:

"a lie is a lie"

"attempting to influence an election is attempting to influence an election" etc  It's really the only place we can go if we're doing everything in our power to avoid we (or our guy) was in the wrong.

 
I agree with everyone else that this is fine.  

I'm not sure why so many people are jumping down Joe's throat for posing the question.  It's good to occasionally remind ourselves of what's okay and what's not okay and why.

 
I agree with everyone else that this is fine.  

I'm not sure why so many people are jumping down Joe's throat for posing the question.  It's good to occasionally remind ourselves of what's okay and what's not okay and why.
I would guess people are jumping down his throat because unfortunately, we have been inundated with Trump supporters claiming "but Biden, but Obama, but Hillary, but Schiff..." and on and on

 
I have no problem with it, but isn`t Trudeau the guy who groped the female reporter?  The Me-Too Movement and left women may not approve at all.

 
I don't see any issue with it. I mean back in the day remember the hot mic where Obama told Russians he'd have much more flexibility after he left office? 

 
That’s fair.  And, all I’m asking for is a little explainer on the editorializing.  First Obama claimed in title to be “influencing” the Canadian election.  Strange verb choice.  In the OP there is a repost of Obama’s tweet in support of Trudeau and then—sudden escalation—a second post of a tweet in “defense” of Obama.  Defense of what?

My concern isn’t that Joe is being dishonest.  But, it clearly seems there’s an embedded issue of interest here that, when asked to clarify, I didn’t feel he was being particularly forthcoming.
Yeah, I think these threads would be different if OPs would articulate more what they’re asking about, but that would also be “editorializing” and they’d get more guff for that.  It’s a tough line with this crew. 

 
Personally I think when you ask what others think you should also include what you think.  I am not sure why people ask other's opinions before offering their own.  Maybe if Joe had said...

Personally I think this is completely above board and I am curious if this is how you all feel.
It would have gone another way.  But I do think many of us are sick of the whataboutism, not saying this was that, but I can understand the view that it is.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top