Election tampering by Russia: is it karma?

Being the preferred candidate of a foreign power would only be the kiss of death if you believe all foreigners have evil intentions for your country. Most people around the world would love to see the Kim dynasty deposed from North Korea but that does not mean those in North Korea who are against Kim are dupes of foreigners. When Bill Clinton was given a bunch of campaign money by the Chinese it did not mean that the country was stolen by the Chinese. There are plenty of good reasons to oppose and support either candidate, who Putin supports should be immaterial.
Russia’s interference was releasing authentic documents outlining the DNC’s being in the tank for Hillary during the primary, buying a few facebook ads, and pushing some fake stories. If that was all it took to sway an election there would be no unswayed elections in the world.

How hard is it to think of examples in which the elections of other counties have been tampered with by agents with the knowledge and consent of the US government? Including the outirght assassination by the CIA of candidates.

Actually, the reason I’M asking has nothing to do with morality or justification.

First reason is simply to remove the unknown. It’s no longer an unprecedented attack on America by a powerful enemy; it’s just the an iteration of the same sh*t we did to other people during the cold war. Lot less frightening now.

Also, the few times I can think of where we interfered in foreign nations (Vietnam, Cuba, Iran, Iraq*) all backfired on us pretty badly. Russia’s not likely to send over troops we can attack (using the same weapons they’ve given and tricks they’ve taught us), so it may take a while.

This entire line of reasoning is ridiculous for several reasons. 1) of course we want to have our way in both our foreign interactions and at home. This is true of every country. Every country on the planet would want to prevent foreign influence in their election and would be upset if they failed to do so. 2) The more troubling thing is that it’s very possible that Trump aided them in doing so. We pay other people to be agents/betray their countries, but when we find them at home, they still go on trial. Nobody said of Aldrich Ames “it’s hilarious that Americans are upset about this, I mean they spy too!”

Since you are someone who is very critical of U.S. foreign policy, I would submit that your simultaneous positions of “the U.S. does everything wrong” and “nobody can judge what is right and wrong in foreign policy” are incompatible.

I agree. Anyone shocked, SHOCKED that this could happen in the US is naive beyond measure. And do we really think this is the first time? I also think it’s dangerous for folks to assume that Trump is some phenomenon that, without Russian interference, would not have happened. For one, we can try to minimize such interference, but we’re never going to get rid of it. So getting rid of Trump isn’t as “easy” as getting rid of foreign influence. If it was determinative (I don’t think it was, but if it was), then we are really screwed. But also, it makes people lazy in their thinking about what changes need to be made next time around in our own candidates. And that goes for the GOP in the primary as much as the Dems in the general. No matter what one things about the general election, I don’t think anyone can claim that Trump won the GOP primary because of help from the Russians.

So yeah, recognize that interference happened, do as much as we can (in a free society) to minimize it going forward, but don’t fixate on it as if it were the be all and end all of the get-rid-of-Trump effort.

It’s no secret that countries meddle in each other’s Internal affairs. The US has openly supported regime change in various countries.

It’s pretty disingenuous to be shocked that Russia tried to influence our election.

What we should focus on is taking steps to better protect the next election.

waah Mommy, the bad Paki is anti-American, help I am being triggered. Which of course is your goto position everytime someone writes something critical. Evil “anti-American”.

There is no right or wrong things in foreign policy. There is, however, a wrong way of doing things. (yes a word can have distinct meanings depending on context, we anti-Americans are dastardly).

*There was nothing inherently right or wrong with US decision to invade Iraq in 2003. The way it was done and executed was exceptionally wrong as everything turned to shit and every action actually seemed to hinder stated objectives.

*Nothing inherently right or wrong with Clinton deciding to expand NATO membership and influence inspite of previous understandings with Russia. The US decided it was in its interests to do so. The way Clinton did it, by maintaining powerful formations in Europe (a Corps plus along with a more than a Wing of Air Force assets), to counter possible Russian moves, was right. The way Bush II did it, by starting a major draw down (1st AD sent back to the US) , while continuing that policy was wrong. The way Obama did it by reducing US forces to Task Force Smith levels and continuing to push, was wrong. And in the later case, being butt hurt when the inevitable pushback came, was stupid.

International relations is a multi-dimensional chess board, and the players are blindfolded half the time. Crying (as you do) “anti-American!!!” everytime someone says a move was not the wisest course of action is; silly.

I don’t believe it would have happened without Russian interference in this particular election.

As for the “they did it to both sides argument”, it’s possible they tried, but it was only effective on one side (the other side not falling for fake news), and seems to be more heavily weighted toward the SCROTUS after he got nominated.

I’m neither crying about it, not am I trying to persuade you that your views are wrong. I’m saying that you take inconsistent views that make your criticism of U.S. foreign policy to appear more like personal grudges than thoughtful analyses, and therefore I don’t find them worth being taken seriously.

But by all means, if it feeds your grudge against Americans, continue to labor under the impression that I’m an America Firster.

Russia’s interest is not in Trump. Russia believes exacerbating factional divisions weakens a strategic competitor. It’s an ancient and obvious technique.

I don’t claim to be an expert on this, but I suspect that is a false dichotomy.

You might be right. I just think that as ripe for exploitation the current political atmosphere in the US is due to partisanship and how the internet amplifies things the election of Trump wasn’t necessary to foment further division.

I certainly agree that Russia will try to tamper with our elections for the reason you noted regardless of whether or not they have a “friend” in one candidate. I just think this time they had a twofer.

No, since you have proven incapable of formulating a coherent argument, you retreat to your default position; which is that I have a “grudge” against Americans. Deep appreciation of arguments is obviously not your strong suit.

AK84, a number of people in here are having civil disagreement. Your decision to make this a personal attack on a poster (including projecting the idea of another poster using an ethnic slur) is well out-of-line, here. If you can’t figure out how to make your argument without going down that road, don’t make the argument.

This article from the Taki blog I think spells out the situation perfectly:

“Political scientist Dov Levin of Carnegie Mellon University estimates that the United States interfered with 81 elections between 1946 and 2000. When we funded Radio Free Europe in 1949, it had two principal objectives: (a) fight fake news, (b) meddle in elections where Communists were involved. We had just finished spending a fortune getting the Christian Democrats elected in Italy against fierce Communist opposition, and we thought we needed a more systematic way to use technology (radio) to propagandize the world. So we created RFE and then we created a CIA front called the National Committee for a Free Europe, which solicited donations from the public so that we could launder money we were funneling to RFE headquarters in Englischer Garten in Munich.”

So, ya.

Yeah, but when we do it, it’s for the greater good.

Isn’t it always? I’ve been watching Ken Burns’ Vietnam and I’m sure the Vietnamese then would wholeheartedly agree…

Where “greater good” means “advantage of the United States”.