What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

President Obama And Influencing Canadian Elections (1 Viewer)

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.
Yes, but he admitted and apologized for the groping incident and it appears to have gone away.   Probably better off just admitting and confronting the situation and having it go away.  If he denied it would go on and on.

 
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 wouldn’t say it’s jumping down Joe’s throat... I do think it’s fair to point out how this literally plays into the hands of those who purposefully look to confuse, conflate and misdirect, though.

Joes a smart guy, and he’s certainly seen enough of those tactics on this board - it just struck me as curious (maybe naive, and I mean that in a good mannered way, not at all a slight) that with all our complaints about those tactics, that one would compare a public figure (and a former president at that)  publicly expressing support for an elected official to a coordinated campaign to surreptitiously utilize an entire underhanded marketing and propaganda campaign to surreptitiously sway the electorate of a historical enemy... and that doesn’t even account for the greatest issue at hand - that we had people on our side HELPING there’s efforts. Efforts they were not designed to simply support one candidate over another but at root, to sow discord and undercut our very democracy itself.    
 

 
I figure that countries involve themselves in campaigns to influence opinion all the time.  I'm sure the CIA has done this countless times over the past decades.  I have no doubts that Russia is going to be trying to do it in 2020.  To me, attempts to influence public opinion are part of the status quo.  It's why I've always thought it was laughable when the "TRUMP TRIED TO UNDERMINE THE 2016 ELECTIONS!!!" arguments came out.  No...he tried to influence public opinion.  The elections happen on a specific date and are comprised of adults casting their own votes.  As far as I know, that process was never compromised.

Instead of focusing on that, focus on his crimes.  Was Trump  responsible for hacking a DNC server? If so, yes that is a crime.  Fake facebook ads?  Not really a crime, though extremely unethical.  

Now if it could be proven that Trump paid Russia to influence opinion for him, you may have a different argument.  But then, I'd imagine that also has gone on for years and is another dirty little secret of Washington.  I mean we are talking about a government where it's legal for lobbyists to pay government officials for their votes in certain areas.  To think that politicians aren't compromised is the height of absurdity.  These guys make all sorts of wink-wink deals so that they will get support of others for elections, and I'm going to assume that in this connected world, that extends outside of the country to.

That's always been my opinion at least.  I've never bought into the "influencing elections" hype, and taken quite a bit of heat over it through the years.

BUT, that story quickly changes if a country tried to actually influence the elections by hacking the election machines or changing the votes somehow.  That would be undermining elections and would be a grave and potentially fatal threat to any democracy.

 
I figure that countries involve themselves in campaigns to influence opinion all the time.  I'm sure the CIA has done this countless times over the past decades.  I have no doubts that Russia is going to be trying to do it in 2020.  To me, attempts to influence public opinion are part of the status quo.  It's why I've always thought it was laughable when the "TRUMP TRIED TO UNDERMINE THE 2016 ELECTIONS!!!" arguments came out.  No...he tried to influence public opinion.  The elections happen on a specific date and are comprised of adults casting their own votes.  As far as I know, that process was never compromised.

Instead of focusing on that, focus on his crimes.  Was Trump  responsible for hacking a DNC server? If so, yes that is a crime.  Fake facebook ads?  Not really a crime, though extremely unethical.  

Now if it could be proven that Trump paid Russia to influence opinion for him, you may have a different argument.  But then, I'd imagine that also has gone on for years and is another dirty little secret of Washington.  I mean we are talking about a government where it's legal for lobbyists to pay government officials for their votes in certain areas.  To think that politicians aren't compromised is the height of absurdity.  These guys make all sorts of wink-wink deals so that they will get support of others for elections, and I'm going to assume that in this connected world, that extends outside of the country to.

That's always been my opinion at least.  I've never bought into the "influencing elections" hype, and taken quite a bit of heat over it through the years.

BUT, that story quickly changes if a country tried to actually influence the elections by hacking the election machines or changing the votes somehow.  That would be undermining elections and would be a grave and potentially fatal threat to any democracy.
Accepting or requesting things of value without paying for them for help in an election from a foreign national is a crime.  Or offering to change foreign policy for that help.  Interestingly, if he'd paid foreign nationals to help influence opinion, that probably wouldn't be a crime.  Because it's not having a foreign national donate to a campaign.

 
Joe Bryant said:
Thank you @IvanKaramazov , that's what disappointed me. I asked what you guys thought and received a pretty clear answer. I'll bow out now. Rock on. 
Don't stress it Joe. You just experienced what anyone with an unpopular opinion goes through. 

Some here choose to ridicule instead of furthering a conversation. 

While I dont think there was anything wrong with what Obama did, there is obviously a line to be drawn out there and some arent sure where it is.

Steering the conversation that direction, what is the line for "interference"?

If a Russian makes a meme that has factual information and gets it trending, is that interference? 

What if the information isn't factual?

I can say no to the first and yes to the second. But where does society land on the gray area?

If a foreign government posts something on Facebook that is mostly true, but also not totally true, is that election meddling?

 
Obama doesn’t seem to want to get involved in the US election. Seems he would support Biden. I would expect him to get involved at least after the convention if not during the convention.

 
Feels like this could just be the tip of the iceberg on possible meddling, but since he is no longer president no one will dig into this.
1.  In no way shape or form does this even hint at meddling.  If Jim Kelly says he hopes the Bills beat the Dolphins on Sunday is this "meddling" as well?

2.  He is no longer President therefore he can say whatever the hell he wants to about any election anywhere in the world.  

 
It's surprising how the pro-capitalist/pro-free-speech crowd suddenly wants to go full Communist when it suits their agenda.

Oh wait. It's not surprising at all.

 
Obama should just run for President again. The Constitution doesn't mean anything anymore, anyway.
Well, at the very least he should hit the campaign trail in the run up to election day. The man is popular and smart and he influences people.

There's probably some unspoken agreement among ex-presidents not to do this. But these are extraordinary times and the need is great. All hands to the pumps, etc. (I'm starting to understand now why gb wikkid tends to ramble a little)

 
:lol:

This would be nothing short of AWESOME!

Obama should just announce it and watch GOP heads explode.  Then Dems ride the wave with no GOP opposition.
Announce it via twitter pointing out that he has 50% more followers than Trump and that might just cause Trump quit.

Hey America....doesn't seem like the Senate or the President care for the Constitution anymore, so I am going to throw my hat in the ring for another 8 years.  I'm sure Nancy will understand

 
Obama should just run for President again. The Constitution doesn't mean anything anymore, anyway.
:lol:

This would be nothing short of AWESOME!

Obama should just announce it and watch GOP heads explode.  Then Dems ride the wave with no GOP opposition.
He could pull a George Wallace and have Michelle run in his place. Or just run as Biden's VP running mate with the understanding that Biden would resign shortly after inauguration day.

 
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.
This thread, after reading the PSF for the day, has immediately turned me off again and it's the usual suspects doing the collectivist throat punch.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top