08-23-2018, 08:52 PM
(08-23-2018, 01:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If Russia was going to interfere in the election they would have been sure to let Trump know all about it. They would want favors in return.
I have never heard of a lobbyist that has given support to a candidate's attempt to get elected but kept it a secret from the candidate. Anyone who goes to the trouble of influencing an election will want something in return.
Your logic in this point is exceedingly poor in my opinion. Preferring Trump over Clinton is reason enough for them to attempt to influence the election. It is absolutely not necessary, or even logical, for them to let Trump know about it ahead of time.
(08-23-2018, 01:45 PM)michaelsean Wrote: That's pretty much made up. They prefer one over the other because they think he's better for them. It doesn't have to be a direct quid pro quo for them to attempt to help him.
100% accurate.
(08-23-2018, 02:09 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No it isn't.
I have never once heard of any person or organization who took major steps to help a candidate get elected without letting the candidate know about those steps.
People who go to the cost and/or trouble of influencing an election always want something in return. So they are going to be 100% sure the candidate knows he is beholden to them for the help.
Really? You've been privy to a lot of classified information regarding foreign influences on our electoral process? I'll give you one for free, Netanyahu speaking before Congress in 2015.
(08-23-2018, 02:12 PM)hollodero Wrote: I'm not so sure about that. With some candidates, having them in office and being corrosive there might be rewarding enough for Putin.
Brexit is an example. Russia wanted Brexit and supported the Brexit movement because of that. There was little to nothing to gain from these folks beyond Brexit.
I'm not super keen on your example but your overall point is solid. In probably every election in a major country there is a preferred candidate by various other countries. The extent that they meddle or subtly influence will vary, but to not think that often times one candidate is preferred over the other would be naïve in the extreme.
