Nope, just wondering how these warriors of the keyboard will react to the same spooky stuff done by their own side, in a US Senate election.
I doubt the NYT scoop I referenced does anything of the sort.
djohn2oo8, Reck, Spurs Homer, boutons_deux, any thoughts?
Nope, just wondering how these warriors of the keyboard will react to the same spooky stuff done by their own side, in a US Senate election.
I doubt the NYT scoop I referenced does anything of the sort.
Last edited by Winehole23; 12-28-2018 at 10:49 AM.
I don't doubt the existence of Russian disinfo ops to influence foreign countries any more than i doubt the existence of US disinfo ops to influence foreign countries.
I do wonder whether such ops were more decisive in 2016 than a bad candidate who managed to lose to the most unpopular candidate ever with a 1 billion dollar war chest and a bad strategy that involved ignoring states she couldn't afford to lose.
I'll readily admit stories like the one I just posted cut against the grain of my skepticism; if the Alabama thing worked as well as advertised by its creators, it is plausible that a modest but well targeted operation could swing a very close nationwide election.
Maybe that was the whole point of the operation, to give the Russian-interference-causing-Trump-to-be-elected hypothesis more credibility.
Tbh, I don't know how one would prove or disprove that hypothesis.
Last edited by Winehole23; 12-28-2018 at 10:54 AM.
at any rate, expect this sort of thing to become the new normal. the perception that the other side gains an edge through online disinfo ops will ensure that everyone does it, whether foreign or domestic.
The story here is the American public being stupid enough to be influenced by absolute crap.
Both ends of the spectrum. Just look at the constant beetle dung dug up on this site from twitter referring back to some made up . The left does not believe this occurs on their end just because the right may have perfected it?
I should not even say perfected because it's a method fit for fungus brains existing under rocks.
Not false equivalence at all IMO. Both ops aimed at suppressing opposition voters and firing up the base in real elections..
Why do you think so?
You're exaggerating. The Russian op was finite and quantifiable.
As previously stated, I'm open to the idea a well-targeted disinfo op could swing a close national election.
What makes you so sure that's what happened?
I never said I doubted the existence of Russian disinfo ops. I don't think I've ever suggested the investigation into them was falsely or corruptly predicated.
I do agree that what's publicly disclosed looks bad for Team Trump. You seem pretty convinced about certain legal outcomes, me less so. Let the chips fall where they may.
I'm still not convinced the Russkies swung the election.
Can you prove they did?
here, I'll give you a leg up on your own hobby horse.
Kathleen Hall Jamieson has the strongest case I've seen for Russia getting Trump elected:
https://global.oup.com/academic/prod...cc=us&lang=en&
You don't think this happens on the left?
You seriously don't because there are no ideologues on the left and the left has smarter more discerning voters.
The subject was on social media other than radio and TV. They are noting and quantifying strategies which was more difficult 40 years ago. (Which of course I'd don't remember but have read about.) It's not about Roy Moore. It's bigger than your "the right has the pervert" theme.
WTF this is all over everywhere in the news?
The huge lesson from the election is that it was close. And that people like you don't get the message that a very significant number of Americans voted for Donald Fn Trump. Why don't you concentrate on how he won the Republican nomination against the huge Republican machine out of a huge group of candidates? Trump beat out the religious right, the Koch brothers on and on and this somehow is not significant enough for you to believe that Trump would have beaten Clinton without any Russian interference?
Are you just bent on seeing what you want? So you take the easy way out and claim its stolen. It's that simple.
Bonnerific doing work.
Thoughts on what part?
That a pedophile had people calling women and offering them money to say that they were paid by the NY times to plant false stories/accusations?
That a pedo who was guilty as got some people so disgusted that they resorted to his level-tactics?
I don't know about that story - first I heard of it - and not sure it has been properly investigated but let's see. Bonnerific pretty much nailed it though.
yup = literate Chris
Not sure it's quite accurate to characterize Russia as an enemy, but there's little doubt Trump is up to his eyeballs in Russian business connections. Trump's myriad conflicts of interests were and are in my mind the most important -- also the most obvious -- disqualification for the office he holds now.
I think he's crooked as . I have little doubt his creditors have leverage over him, and that his business ambitions his official acts.
Sorry, whose testimony are you referring to here?
Who testified to what?
I place a burning importance on the difference between hunches and verified knowledge. It's clear you don't.
It's hilarious that you think disagreement with you is treason against the USA.
Grandiose, much?
You have to have people who are already scared and feel oppressed or overlooked. Obama won two straight elections basically on the strength of "he knows what the common AND downtrodden feel like".
Excellent.
Explain what you disagree with and why Chrispurter of the left.
check it out, curious to know what you think, Spurs Homer
Sorry, whose testimony are you referring to here?Originally Posted by bonnerific
I guess I trust the intelligence community says they did under oath.
Who testified to what?
I didn't cry fake news. I've acknowledged Russian disinfo ops ITT, repeatedly.
I held my nose and voted for Clinton like many other people who knew Donald Trump BEFORE he came into office.
This human you point out. You think the right is loaded with it but the left has none?
How the fck did Obama win? Part of what you call voted for him. Along with a whole lot of other (by your definition based on this rant, the uneducated)
Back to work.
You don't know that a significant number of very good people voted for Trump. All you see is that confederate flag behind toothless white people. Just like the pictures. Just like the right sees the black Muslim American getting handouts while helping brown lice infested criminals across the border.
Tapper, Bret Baier, Chris Wallace, would be my picks for most credible
Least are Brian Williams for lying, and Maddow, Hannity, Dobbs for being partisan propagandists
That might be true.
If they are STILL supporting him now - it makes them not so good people today. What did they learn?
They are nothing but white supremacist sympathizers.
Are we at war with Russia? That's the traditional and legal definition of the word.
Were you using it colloquially?
There are *still sanctions againt Russia; the US Congress doesn't seem to have paid much attention to the President's preferences
Elections are complicated; boiling them down to one or two factors probably obscures more than it reveals.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)