Russia Collusion Scandal (aka A Leftist fantasy)

sturg33 said:
There's a republican running for Missouri Senate, Austin Petersen. He is essentially a libertarian which is why I'm following it.

Facebook just banned him again for 30 days (2nd time). His offense was raffling off an AR-15

Is this considered "election interference?" By this thread? If so, are we outraged by it?
Click to expand...

Was he using Facebook as a platform to raffle the AR-15? To me this is a relevant question. Facebook should exercise some control over how people use the platform. It is not much different from a local TV station declining to run an ad promoting the raffle.
 
nsacpi said:
Was he using Facebook as a platform to raffle the AR-15? To me this is a relevant question. Facebook should exercise some control over how people use the platform.
Click to expand...

He was.

But I am not aware of raffling off ar-15 is any sort of crime.

In fact, there are many groups on Facebook that do it.

But they're not running for Senate. As a republican.

So I still ask, is this election interference and are we outraged?
 
sturg33 said:
He was.

But I am not aware of raffling off ar-15 is any sort of crime.

In fact, there are many groups on Facebook that do it.

But they're not running for Senate. As a republican.

So I still ask, is this election interference and are we outraged?
Click to expand...

Obviously Facebook should not be used to promote crimes. I think there we all are in agreement.

But there are other activities that are not necessarily crimes that might merit censorship. And I don't mind using that word.

I do agree that Facebook should be transparent and consistent with respect to application of its rules.

To answer your question, I think it is silly of you to suggest an equivalence between this and the very real attempts by the Russians to undermine our democratic processes. No I am not outraged.
 
So a third party entity is using Facebook to alter opinions on an election.

One is election interference.

The other isn't.

To answer your questions, yes and yes
 
sturg33 said:
So a third party entity is using Facebook to alter opinions on an election.

One is election interference.

The other isn't.

To answer your questions, yes and yes
Click to expand...

It would appear to me that one is breaking federal election laws and one isn't. A foreign entity unlawfully acting in the interest of a political candidate is, by definition, election interference. I'm not sure how you're shoehorning the other into that conversation.
 
Julio3000 said:
It would appear to me that one is breaking federal election laws and one isn't. A foreign entity unlawfully acting in the interest of a political candidate is, by definition, election interference. I'm not sure how you're shoehorning the other into that conversation.
Click to expand...

How do you define foreign?
 
Julio3000 said:
It would appear to me that one is breaking federal election laws and one isn't. A foreign entity unlawfully acting in the interest of a political candidate is, by definition, election interference. I'm not sure how you're shoehorning the other into that conversation.
Click to expand...

So you're only concerned about the law, but not the actual act itself?
 
sturg33 said:
So you're only concerned about the law, but not the actual act itself?
Click to expand...

Considering that I don't understand the very premise that the two actions are similar to begin with, I'm not sure I see why the clear distinction between private, legal commercial activity and illegal campaign activity DOESN'T matter.
 
thethe said:
How do you define foreign?
Click to expand...

The take that Russian involvement in the campaign is no different than the of, say, an American media conglomerate was aired by you and noted my me quite a long while ago. I'm not really interested in engaging it, since it was stone silly then and is no less silly now.
 
Julio3000 said:
Considering that I don't understand the very premise that the two actions are similar to begin with, I'm not sure I see why the clear distinction between private, legal commercial activity and illegal campaign activity DOESN'T matter.
Click to expand...

yeah...i'm trying to understand what his take is on the two events...some clarification would be helpful
 
Seychelles
Malta
Prague
United Arab Emirates
Australia
Hacking
Diplomats
Russia
Dead Spies
Prostitutes in Thai prisons
Piss play at the Ritz-Carlton
Treason
Espionage
Ukraine
Cyprus

What am I missing?

Oh, yes.

Trump.

giphy.gif
 
Hawk said:
Seychelles
Malta
Prague
United Arab Emirates
Australia
Hacking
Diplomats
Russia
Dead Spies
Prostitutes in Thai prisons
Piss play at the Ritz-Carlton
Treason
Espionage
Ukraine
Cyprus

What am I missing?

Oh, yes.

Trump.

giphy.gif
Click to expand...

You have the right place at the top of your list.

Others I would add:

Athens (especially)
Budapest
Doha
The Lady in Black
Simona Mangiante (mazel tov to her and George)
St Regis NYC
and last but not least a small town in Germany
 
Julio3000 said:
The take that Russian involvement in the campaign is no different than the of, say, an American media conglomerate was aired by you and noted my me quite a long while ago. I'm not really interested in engaging it, since it was stone silly then and is no less silly now.
Click to expand...

The assumption is that Facebook intentions are pure and wholesome while Russia's are devious?

I don't understand why a distinction is made between the two. Why is Facebook considered American?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top