Sunday, July 23, 2017

Was Colluding with Russia OK?

This morning on CNN there was a discussion with a group of Trump supporters. One of the questions they were asked was something like: Does it bother you there might have been collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia? All but one of the group of seven said no, it doesn't bother them. As seeming justification for their position they said the US has interfered in foreign elections.

It sounds like they are trying to make the argument that: BECAUSE the US has interfered in foreign elections THEREFORE, it is OK for foreign countries to interfere in our elections and since it is OK for foreign countries to interfere in our elections THEREFORE, it is OK for Americans to collude with foreign countries who are interfering in our elections.

Is this a good argument?

Now many people don't care if they are making good arguments. When many people set out to defend their TRIBES they don't care about facts or logic, they just defend their tribe at any cost.

But WE are not like that.... WE are intelligent human beings who want to think carefully and make sure we have good reasons for what we believe and what we do.

So let's examine the argument I heard this morning.

One way to examine an argument is to apply it to a different, but similar situation, and see if it still makes sense.

***

What if we were not talking about an election, what if we were talking about business instead? Let's apply the election argument to a business case and see if it still makes sense.

BECAUSE my employer is trying to undersell a competitor in order to win a contract THEREFORE, it is OK for our competitor to try to undersell my employer to win the contract and since it is OK for our competitor to try to undersell my employer THEREFORE, it is OK for me to to collude with our competitor in trying to undersell my employer.

That doesn't really work does it? It does not follow from the fact that my company is trying to undersell a competitor that it is OK for me to collude with the competitor in trying to undersell my company. In fact, if I were caught doing that, I would be accused of disloyalty and I would certainly be fired.

***

Let's try another example. What if my country is fighting a battle against an enemy during a war. Let's see how the argument looks in that situation:

BECAUSE my country is trying to defeat an enemy in battle THEREFORE, it is OK for the enemy to try to defeat my country in battle and since it is OK for our enemy to try to defeat my country in battle THEREFORE, it is OK for me to to collude with our enemy in trying to defeat my country in battle.

That doesn't work either does it? It certainly does not follow from the fact that because my country is trying to defeat an enemy in battle that it is OK for me to collude with the enemy in trying to defeat my own country in battle. In fact, if I were caught doing that, I would be accused of disloyalty and I would most likely be charged with treason, and possibly executed for my crime.

***

So an argument might sound reasonable to us just because it supports what we want to believe. But if we apply that argument to other situations and see that it makes no sense than it probably makes no sense in the place where it was originally used either.

Based on this analysis our conclusion is that even if the US has interfered in foreign elections, whether rightly or wrongly, it does not follow from this that an American is justified in colluding with a foreign country to interfere in our elections. In fact, colluding with a foreign country to interfere in a US election would prove that you were disloyal to your country and to its political system, and a person who is disloyal to the US should certainly not be working for the US government.

[Based on the direction we are moving now it might be wise to learn about the last time a dangerous President had to be removed. This book looks like a good place to start. Please buy it, read it, let me know how it is!]

[If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!]

***

Copyright © 2017 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

Sunday, July 16, 2017

The Trump Hypothesis

Shortly after we found out about the meeting between Trump, Jr., Manafort, Kushner, and the "Russian government lawyer," we found out there were more people in the room. One of them was connected with Russian counter-intelligence. However this particular detail turns out... it just felt like the last straw to me.

I'm going to propose what I now think is a very reasonable hypothesis for testing:

"In 2015-2016 the Russian government and Russian intelligence launched an operation to put a friendly person into the White House, someone who would give them favorable treatment over sanctions, the Ukraine, and other issues. They used a variety of methods they are known to have used in other countries. At some point, the campaign they were helping began communicating with them and cooperating with them in this operation and the Russian choice for 2016 is now the President of the United States."

The first part of the hypothesis - that there was a Russian operation - is already supported by overwhelming evidence. The second part of the hypothesis - that an American Presidential candidate cooperated with a Russian intelligence operation designed to make him President - is becoming more likely with every new revelation.

So that's my hypothesis. Now we will test it with all the available evidence. Let's see if it's true. If it is not true, no harm done. If it is true, this will be a tragedy for the United States, and an embarrassment of epic proportions.

***

[Now that Trump is President we better learn all we can about him. This book looks like a good place to start. Please buy it, read it, let me know how it is!]

[If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!]

***

Copyright © 2017 by Joseph Wayne Gadway