Reply With Quote
I posted this in your other thread.
I like how they spent more than the Russians yet the NYT tried to downplay the significance it had on the votes.
wild NYT story.
Roy Moore was the target of a false flag info-op that planted the idea that Roy Moore's campaign was being amplified by a Russian botnet.
The org that did the false flag op, New Directions, in the very same time frame was delivering a report to the US Senate about the dangers of Russian social media to democracy.
Last edited by Winehole23; 12-20-2018 at 11:55 AM.
I posted this in your other thread.
I like how they spent more than the Russians yet the NYT tried to downplay the significance it had on the votes.
yeah, well what's your take on it?
(Henry Farrell>Robert Barnes, tbh)
morgan wright is legit imo, as far as cybersecurity expertise. he was a keynote speaker at a bar association event on technology in litigation. got a chance to speak to him 1 on 1 afterwards, cool dude.
dunno about his politics tho
Morgan Wright possibly bad now then?
i dunno about his politics. maybe he's just right leaning. maybe he's a trump bootlicker. maybe he's a Q truther. i dunno.
he said nothing relating to cybersecurity in that entire interview clip. he's a good authority on cybersecurity issues.
What if he's just reporting facts that could possibly shed a negative light on your favored politicians? Is that just "his politics", or is this a disconnect?
he's not a journalist or a reporter, so i dont know what new facts he'd bring to the table, other than regurgitating what has already been reported by somebody else. he doesn't have any more expertise on twitter campaign funding than the average person.
his cybersecurity expertise has nothing to do with anything he said in that video. he didnt give some expert insight or anything like that.
Only journalists and reporters can bring facts to the table?
journalists/reporters, and primary sources bring facts to the table.
anybody can discuss the facts after they've been laid out. and usually you'd like an expert in the field to give an opinion as to what the facts collectively mean.
Anyone going on Lou Dobbs loses a lot of credibility. Might as well book InfoWars next.
Who is your preferred TV journalist since you are expert on credibility?
Why do I have to have a preferred TV journalist? It's 2018, most people get their news online. Like any responsible person, I pull from a number of sources.
As far as TV, I like Vice's stuff. I don't watch hour-long cable news pundit shows. For one thing I'm not a disabled 65 year old.
Thanks for not answering the question.
Who's your favorite female polka singer?
What kind of sad life must you lead that it's beyond your comprehension that someone doesn't watch prime time cable news shows or have a "preferred TV journalist"?
Weird Al in drag
You were quick to on Dobbs but you don't watch "cable news." I figured you were talking out of your ass, but thanks for the quick confirmation.
Mr Wright has a right to have whatever political leanings and bias, tbh
The part that’s kinda disingenuous is that he’s worked with alleged deep state administrations like the two previous Democrat and Republican administrations. I suppose Deep State good now...
Right, because in the internet age and the age of political comedy shows, no one is ever exposed to cable TV punditry unless they actually watch said pundit's show.
there's probably a bit of horn-tooting, but if genuine, the do ents referred to in the NYT scoop @ this link are damning:
https://medium.com/@jeffgiesea/break...n-e3edd854f17d
oddly enough, if the disinfo op moved the needle in Alabama, that would tend to reinforce the narrative New Knowledge (and many posters here) are pushing: that a modest investment in targeted, online electoral disinfo can pay off.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
