• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GOP -- The Party of Conspiracy Theorists

No and it is not even illegal. It is foreign GOVERNMENTS that are forbidden from helping any candidate. I bet you are too thick to even understand why that is. A 3rd grader could but not you.

We know Russians hacked the DNC, we don't know that the orders came from the Russian government. So, it appears to be the same thing. It's interesting when someone has to resort to insults -- usually because they can't logically defend their position.
 
Wrong.

Distributing and publishing the hacked emails was legal. Perfectly legal. That's why virtually every newspaper and online media outlet published them. That's why all the major television reporters read them on air.

Your analogy is inaccurate. Goods and information are treated in different ways under the law.

In order for someone to be criminally liable, they'd have to be involved in the actual hacking, or pay the people who are hacking. But, using the information later isn't a crime. Sorry. Can you imagine if we locked up all the media outlets?

Hey, wait a minute....that might not be a bad idea!

You have been schooled enough on you fallacy so I won't repeat it. Suffice it to say that a foreign Govt. may not help any Presidential candidate and a candidate may not accept any help from a foreign Govt. It is illegal.

And, at the same time, it is because of this clear involvement of a foreign state actor that the Trump case will be pivotal in determining the efficacy of the ban on foreign national electioneering. The campaign finance laws have as their core purpose preventing corruption of government, or its appearance, but the provision prohibiting foreign political spending is uniquely concerned with corruption of a different, even higher order, that strikes at national security. The Bluman court cited the high importance of preserving of the “basic conception of a political community” in holding that two individuals–one a Canadian and the other holding dual Canadian and Israeli citizenship–could not make simple, every-day contributions to political organizations. In the Trump case, which involves active foreign intervention in a political campaign that is welcomed and encouraged by one of the candidates, this “basic conception” is even more–it is fair to say, acutely– at stake.

As the case unfolds, other instances of Russian support for the campaign might still surface, as I have indicated. The investigators will look into unconfirmed reports that the Russians may have attempted through intermediaries to buy ads placed for the benefit of Trump on social media platforms. Should there be any evidence that the Trump campaign colluded in this advertising activity, a straightforward campaign finance violation–a massive illegal contribution to the campaign– would be added to the one built on hacking and WikiLeaks distribution. The same holds true for any collusion over use of microtargeting techniques, which congressional investigations are reportedly now also probing.

But, as a major issue of foreign national involvement under the campaign finance law, the hacking episode may prove more than sufficient to sustain the current criminal investigation, and it could wind up being a central to it.

"When Collusion with a Foreign Government Becomes a Crime" -
 
We know Russians hacked the DNC, we don't know that the orders came from the Russian government. So, it appears to be the same thing. It's interesting when someone has to resort to insults -- usually because they can't logically defend their position.

The 12 indicted Russian's were all members of Putin's secret service, the GRU. So we DO know they were working for the Russian Govt. Sorry but when I see posts that are so clueless that I believe the poster is feigning ignorance I call them on it. That is happening at epidemic proportion lately. But it would help if you can tell me why a foreign Govt. is forbidden to help a candidate and why this is important. It really isn't a difficult question.
 
I doubt you have any privileges that I don't have because I'm female. In the past, I managed a diverse staff, more males than females, and I had no problems with the men -- or with the women. And, how many women run to open doors for you? For me, all it takes is a pretty dress and heels and I rarely have to break my stride going through a doorway because by the time I get there it's wide open. That's pretty fun, actually.

The only thing you have that I don't is the ability to pee standing up. That'd be nice but it's not in the cards for me.

Astounding ignorance.
 
I don't agree. There are so many things I can do that men can't. If I walk into a men's restroom, no one cares. If I take a little boy who's too little to go to the bathroom alone into the female bathroom, no one pays any attention. But, no one like men taking their daughters into the men's bathroom. I've been asked at least half a dozen times over the years to accompany a little girl in the women's bathroom because the father didn't want to take her into the men's bathroom. Women regularly are asked to do that.

I'm not saying men are victims -- they're not. I'm saying we have some double standards that aren't going away anytime soon. I doubt you have any privileges that I don't have because I'm female. In the past, I managed a diverse staff, more males than females, and I had no problems with the men -- or with the women. And, how many women run to open doors for you? For me, all it takes is a pretty dress and heels and I rarely have to break my stride going through a doorway because by the time I get there it's wide open. That's pretty fun, actually.

The only thing you have that I don't is the ability to pee standing up. That'd be nice but it's not in the cards for me.

Off Topic:

Red:
I had to deal with that. My wife passed when my daughter was "accompanying age." I used a tactic I've yet to see others use: I opened the door and hollered, "Father and daughter incoming," and waited a beat and then took her to a stall and let her do her business. She said, "Ready," when she was done, I waited a beat, she opened the door, went to wash her hands, we left, and that was that.

I can't tell you how often I felt ridiculous standing outside the ladies room waiting for my daughter to exist even when she could go in on her own. That didn't happen too often, but it did happen...department stores, concerts and sporting events, and other large public venues. (That worked out just as well anyway because the lines at sporting events and concerts move more quickly for the men's room.)

Call me crazy, but I wasn't keen to let my kid out of my sight and risk her being abducted. At football and baseball games when we went as a family, the whole bunch of us -- she, her brothers and I -- went to the restroom together. Eventually, I and my kids got enough past my wife's passing and acquired lady friends with whom I felt comfortable doing things like going to ball games and the like.​
 
Back
Top Bottom