Page 1 of 20 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 494
  1. #1
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    51,121
    Did Russia just put its man in the White House? Americans are furiously debating the question as intelligence reports leak, Donald Trump tweets his doubts and Congress vows to investigate.

    As analysts who have spent years studying Russia’s influence campaigns, we’re confident the spooks have it mostly right: The Kremlin ran a sophisticated, multilayered operation that aimed to sow chaos in the U.S. political system, if not to elect Trump outright. But you don’t need a security clearance or a background in spycraft to come to that conclusion. All you need to do is open your eyes.


    So how did Putin do it?


    It wasn’t by hacking election machines or manipulating the results, as some have suggested. That would be too crude. The Kremlin’s canny operatives didn’t change votes; they won them, influencing voters to choose Russia’s preferred outcome by pushing stolen information at just the right time—through slanted, or outright false stories on social media. As we detail in our recent report, based on 30 months of closely watching Russia’s online influence operations and monitoring some 7,000 accounts, the Kremlin’s troll army swarmed the web to spread disinformation and undermine trust in the electoral system.

    1. Pick close contests: In both the British referendum and U.S. presidential votes, Russia happened upon an almost perfectly divided electorate. It took a nudge of just a few percentage points in each case to achieve victory.

    ...

    2. Know your audience: In 2008 and 2012, Barack Obama’s strategists conducted a surgical influence effort, mapping key votes down to the neighborhood level. Russian operatives have borrowed from this playbook and targeted audiences vulnerable to their influence across the West—largely supporters of the “alt-right” and others angered by the perceived effects of globalization, immigration, terrorism and economic hardship. In the U.S., Russia’s blending of semi-overt and covert social media accounts use common hashtags and phrases to create what appear to be conservative Trump supporters or alt-right cheerleaders. These social media personas, whose bios are littered with words like “country,” “Christian,” “America” and “military,” then push pro-Trump hashtags loaded with skewed and fake news at American audiences, helping generate organic Trump support and distrust of the U.S. government.

    3. Start early and be persistent: As early as August 2015, Russian English-language outlets and their social media allies were promoting Trump—at a time when the idea that he could actually win seemed a distant fantasy. And they kept going throughout the Republican primary, surging at key times. Put differently, Russia didn’t just intervene in the general election against Hillary Clinton—it helped him defeat his anti-Moscow GOP rivals, too. The United Kingdom observed a similar campaign. Dating back to the earliest parts of 2015, Russian media outlets incited fear of immigration and promoted Brexit advocate Nigel Farage’s accusations of American manipulation to foster popular support for the British to leave the EU.


    4. Try everything. Stick with what works:
    Today’s Russian propagandists borrow from the playbook of their Soviet forefathers. RT and Sputnik News push political, financial, social and calamitous messages stoking fear and conspiracy into the information environment of any democratic audience su ious or outwardly hostile to Russia. Since the summer of 2015, we’ve observed Russian messaging pushed to groups across the spectrum, the left and the right politically. Anarchists, anti-capitalists, white supremacists and anti-government militias have all received Russian English-language directed propaganda through the targeted application of bots and person-to-person engagement from what appear to be fellow Americans with strong Russian leanings.

    5. Hack and release: Russia’s synchronization of hacking and influence operations provides a one-two punch for manipulating democratic audiences. In the old days, Soviet Kompromat, or compromising materials, were used by KGB agents to encourage Western officials and public figures to speak and act in ways more amenable to Soviet objectives, via threats to expose criminality, corruption or sexual misbehavior. Today, Russia’s hacking teams, two of which security researchers have dubbed Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear, conduct wide-ranging kompromat hacking into thousands of current and former Western government officials, media personalities and national security experts. Russia then strategically releases true, manipulated true, and false information to data dumpsites such as WikiLeaks. These “information nukes” fuel Russian overt propaganda and supply dozens of fringe conspiratorial news sites. Russia’s cyber kompromat playbook appears to have a new target. Germany, the key remaining player in the EU, has already noted Russian hacks against its parliament in 2015, along with a sharp uptick in propaganda ahead of the country’s upcoming elections.


    6. Use brute force to overwhelm adversaries:
    Soviet military doctrine employed the principle of mass to counter Western forces—employing three to four times the artillery of their enemies. Once the Soviets found a break in enemy lines, they’d exploit the breach, occupy a position in the rear area of the enemy and then fight from a defensive position. Today’s Russian social media influence operations employ a similar approach. After using hacked information to craft manipulated truths, Russia propagates and amplifies stories using automated bots.

    7. Win even when you lose. Russia would prefer that its chosen candidates be victorious, but losing is almost as good: Putin and company are happy just to foment chaos, confusion and doubt. It doesn’t even take much. The mere allegation that voter rolls in Illinois and Arizona had been hacked raised concerns of a rigged outcome, lending credibility to wild claims like those the Green Party’s Jill Stein leveled in Wisconsin. Even the Electoral College, historically a rubber stamp, is becoming another partisan battlefield. And now, with many Americans embittered by the nastiest election in memory and squabbling over the very question of Russian meddling, Putin can sit back and admire his handiwork. Because either way, he’s already won.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...lection-214524


    For those of you rationalizing it, this is the methodology.

    Basically, it is a campaign of targeted lies, then you just sit back and let the lack of critical thinking on the part of your target audience do the rest.

  2. #2
    License to Lillard tlongII's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trail Blazers
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Post Count
    28,727
    4 Reasons Russia Didn’t Swing The Election To Trump

    Democrats are over the moon about the new Washington Post report that quotes CIA sources who say that Vladimir Putin and the Russian government actively attempted to aid Donald Trump in his election race against Hillary Clinton. Many Democrats have been making the claim that if not for Putin’s intervention – if not for Russian hackers accessing emails from Hillary campaign chief John Podesta and then releasing them via WikiLeaks for months – Hillary Clinton would today be the president-elect.

    There’s no evidence to support that.

    There is plenty of evidence to support the contrary notion, actually.

    1. Hillary Tanked Because Of Comey. When FBI Director James Comey announced on October 28 that the FBI had reopened their investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails, the iceberg hit the anic. The gushing hole the FBI announcement represented can’t be overstated. As Nate Silver pointed out over the weekend, “Late-deciding voters broke strongly against Clinton in swing states, enough to cost her MI/WI/PA.” According to Silver, “Clinton would almost certainly be President-elect if the election had been held on Oct. 27 (day before Comey letter).” The Comey reopening happened because of discoveries made during the Anthony Weiner investigation, not because of WikiLeaks.

    2. Hillary Was Wildly Unpopular The Entire Election Cycle. The notion that WikiLeaks pushed Hillary’s unpopularity is unsupported by the evidence. An Economist/YouGov poll taken January 15-January 19, 2016 showed that just 38 percent of voters saw Hillary favorably, compared with 56 percent who viewed her unfavorably; that same poll showed her at 43 percent to 56 percent on November 4 through November 7. Hillary was always an awful candidate, and most Americans knew that for the entire election cycle.

    3. The Major WikiLeaks Revelations Weren’t Major Enough. The most serious WikiLeaks revelations about Clinton broke late in the campaign: Donna Brazile channeling debate questions to Hillary Clinton during her campaign with Bernie Sanders, Hillary aides attacking Catholics, Hillary working with the Clinton Foundation. But none of those had any marked impact on her poll numbers. It was the Comey revelations that damaged her severely – she seemed to be stabilizing just before the Comey news broke.

    4. It Wasn’t Putin’s Fault Hillary Didn’t Visit The Swing States. Hillary’s team blew it. She didn’t show up in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. According to Huffington Post, “In Michigan alone, a senior battleground state operative told HuffPost that the state party and local officials were running at roughly one-tenth the paid canvasser capacity that Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) had when he ran for president in 2004…. A similar situation unfolded in Wisconsin. According to several operatives there, the campaign’s state office and local officials scrambled to raise nearly $1 million for efforts to get out the vote in the closing weeks.” Hillary assumed she had the campaign in the bag, and in the final weeks, she treated it that way, spending time in states that weren’t compe ive rather than those that were.

    Is it serious stuff that Putin attempted to influence an American election by hacking an American ins ution like the DNC? Of course. It was impeachable when Richard Nixon bugged Democratic headquarters in 1972 – it’s not exactly small news when the Russians effectively do the same thing to Democrats in 2016. But just as Nixon’s bugging didn’t cost McGovern the election in 1972, there’s little evidence to suggest that Putin’s interference stopped Hillary Clinton from becoming president-elect.


    http://www.dailywire.com/news/11546/...mp-ben-shapiro

  3. #3
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    51,121
    4 Reasons Russia Didn’t Swing The Election To Trump

    Democrats are over the moon about the new Washington Post report that quotes CIA sources who say that Vladimir Putin and the Russian government actively attempted to aid Donald Trump in his election race against Hillary Clinton. Many Democrats have been making the claim that if not for Putin’s intervention – if not for Russian hackers accessing emails from Hillary campaign chief John Podesta and then releasing them via WikiLeaks for months – Hillary Clinton would today be the president-elect.

    There’s no evidence to support that.

    There is plenty of evidence to support the contrary notion, actually.

    1. Hillary Tanked Because Of Comey. When FBI Director James Comey announced on October 28 that the FBI had reopened their investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails, the iceberg hit the anic. The gushing hole the FBI announcement represented can’t be overstated. As Nate Silver pointed out over the weekend, “Late-deciding voters broke strongly against Clinton in swing states, enough to cost her MI/WI/PA.” According to Silver, “Clinton would almost certainly be President-elect if the election had been held on Oct. 27 (day before Comey letter).” The Comey reopening happened because of discoveries made during the Anthony Weiner investigation, not because of WikiLeaks.

    2. Hillary Was Wildly Unpopular The Entire Election Cycle. The notion that WikiLeaks pushed Hillary’s unpopularity is unsupported by the evidence. An Economist/YouGov poll taken January 15-January 19, 2016 showed that just 38 percent of voters saw Hillary favorably, compared with 56 percent who viewed her unfavorably; that same poll showed her at 43 percent to 56 percent on November 4 through November 7. Hillary was always an awful candidate, and most Americans knew that for the entire election cycle.

    3. The Major WikiLeaks Revelations Weren’t Major Enough. The most serious WikiLeaks revelations about Clinton broke late in the campaign: Donna Brazile channeling debate questions to Hillary Clinton during her campaign with Bernie Sanders, Hillary aides attacking Catholics, Hillary working with the Clinton Foundation. But none of those had any marked impact on her poll numbers. It was the Comey revelations that damaged her severely – she seemed to be stabilizing just before the Comey news broke.

    4. It Wasn’t Putin’s Fault Hillary Didn’t Visit The Swing States. Hillary’s team blew it. She didn’t show up in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. According to Huffington Post, “In Michigan alone, a senior battleground state operative told HuffPost that the state party and local officials were running at roughly one-tenth the paid canvasser capacity that Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) had when he ran for president in 2004…. A similar situation unfolded in Wisconsin. According to several operatives there, the campaign’s state office and local officials scrambled to raise nearly $1 million for efforts to get out the vote in the closing weeks.” Hillary assumed she had the campaign in the bag, and in the final weeks, she treated it that way, spending time in states that weren’t compe ive rather than those that were.

    Is it serious stuff that Putin attempted to influence an American election by hacking an American ins ution like the DNC? Of course. It was impeachable when Richard Nixon bugged Democratic headquarters in 1972 – it’s not exactly small news when the Russians effectively do the same thing to Democrats in 2016. But just as Nixon’s bugging didn’t cost McGovern the election in 1972, there’s little evidence to suggest that Putin’s interference stopped Hillary Clinton from becoming president-elect.


    http://www.dailywire.com/news/11546/...mp-ben-shapiro
    There is plenty of evidence, jackass.

    80,000 votes in 3 states. That's it.

    Your rationalization doesn't really address the OP's points. It is sad, but wholly expected that you think that.

    Critical thinking question:
    1. Pick close contests: In both the British referendum and U.S. presidential votes, Russia happened upon an almost perfectly divided electorate. It took a nudge of just a few percentage points in each case to achieve victory.
    Tell me how your post addresses this item. Be very specific, and be sure to address how it deals with the narrow margins of victory in those three states.


    (edit)

    I know I am asking you to do something you can't do. I fully expect you to either ignore it, or simply copy/paste some more bull .


  4. #4
    Board Man Comes Home Clipper Nation's Avatar
    My Team
    Los Angeles Clippers
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Post Count
    54,257
    Democrats during the election: "Nobody cares about Hillary's emails! They're a non-story! The real scandal is [insert fabricated Trump "scandal" of the week here]!"

    Democrats after the election: "Russia and WikiLeaks cost Hillary the election by releasing all those emails!"

    Which is it, lib s?

  5. #5
    notthewordsofonewhokneels Thread's Avatar
    My Team
    Los Angeles Lakers
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Post Count
    91,195
    Democrats during the election: "Nobody cares about Hillary's emails! They're a non-story! The real scandal is [insert fabricated Trump "scandal" of the week here]!"

    Democrats after the election: "Russia and WikiLeaks cost Hillary the election by releasing all those emails!"

    Which is it, lib s?
    CN

  6. #6
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    Democrats during the election: "Nobody cares about Hillary's emails! They're a non-story! The real scandal is [insert fabricated Trump "scandal" of the week here]!"

    Democrats after the election: "Russia and WikiLeaks cost Hillary the election by releasing all those emails!"

    Which is it, lib s?
    there were emails on Hillary's server, which showed nothing. Comey didn't indict but ed her over good. These were the emails that, eg, Bernie said people don't' care about.

    then there were the emails hacked by the Russians and leaked by wikileaks, and dribbled out over the weeks

    typical that you fail to distinguish the two email stories is expected.

  7. #7
    Board Man Comes Home Clipper Nation's Avatar
    My Team
    Los Angeles Clippers
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Post Count
    54,257
    Hillary's emails, Podesta's emails, the DNC's emails - doesn't matter, Media and the Democrats did everything they could to downplay all of them while the election was in progress. Now that you've lost, you moonbats have started flip-flopping and hyping them up into the biggest factor in the election so you can blame Russia for your loss.

  8. #8
    License to Lillard tlongII's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trail Blazers
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Post Count
    28,727
    There is plenty of evidence, jackass.

    80,000 votes in 3 states. That's it.

    Your rationalization doesn't really address the OP's points. It is sad, but wholly expected that you think that.

    Critical thinking question:


    Tell me how your post addresses this item. Be very specific, and be sure to address how it deals with the narrow margins of victory in those three states.


    (edit)

    I know I am asking you to do something you can't do. I fully expect you to either ignore it, or simply copy/paste some more bull .

    Point #4 directly addresses that item and the other 3 address it indirectly. And yet you complain about intellectual dishonesty when you are one of the worst promulgators of it I have seen.

  9. #9
    redirkulous mavsfan1000's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Post Count
    14,096
    Fake news!

  10. #10
    sha na na na na kneeeees Axl Rose's Avatar
    My Team
    Los Angeles Lakers
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Post Count
    756
    BUTTHURT
    U
    T
    T
    H
    U
    R
    T

  11. #11
    Veteran hater's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Post Count
    74,105
    But but USA and the CIA NEVER influenced foreign elections

    Russia is just spreding democracy

  12. #12
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    51,121
    Tell me how your post addresses this item. Be very specific, and be sure to address how it deals with the narrow margins of victory in those three states.

    I know I am asking you to do something you can't do. I fully expect you to either ignore it, or simply copy/paste some more bull .

    Point #4 directly addresses that item and the other 3 address it indirectly. And yet you complain about intellectual dishonesty when you are one of the worst promulgators of it I have seen.
    So you ignored it, as predicted.

    Don't strain yourself.

  13. #13
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    51,121
    emails,emails, emails


    Get some new material. Your is boring.

  14. #14
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    51,121
    um, sure. If you say so.

    Way to walk into that one, Gump.

  15. #15
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    Hillary's emails, Podesta's emails, the DNC's emails - doesn't matter, Media and the Democrats did everything they could to downplay all of them while the election was in progress. Now that you've lost, you moonbats have started flip-flopping and hyping them up into the biggest factor in the election so you can blame Russia for your loss.
    Comey's trashing Hillary twice over "emails", hers and others, DOES MATTER.

  16. #16
    Board Man Comes Home Clipper Nation's Avatar
    My Team
    Los Angeles Clippers
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Post Count
    54,257


    Get some new material. Your is boring.
    So the emails weren't a big deal, then? Glad you admit that "muh Russian hackers" had no influence on the results of the election.

  17. #17
    Board Man Comes Home Clipper Nation's Avatar
    My Team
    Los Angeles Clippers
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Post Count
    54,257
    Comey's trashing Hillary twice over "emails", hers and others, DOES MATTER.
    Hey dip , Comey reopened the case on Hillary because they found a bunch of emails when they were investigating that pervert Anthony Weiner. It had nothing to do with WikiLeaks at all.

  18. #18
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ TheSanityAnnex's Avatar
    My Team
    Sacramento Kings
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    21,376
    Comey's trashing Hillary twice over "emails", hers and others, DOES MATTER.
    Maybe she shouldn't have set up a private server. Maybe SAP level information should not have passed through that server. Maybe she shouldn't have wiped her entire server after being told to produce emails.

  19. #19
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    Hey dip , Comey reopened the case on Hillary because they found a bunch of emails when they were investigating that pervert Anthony Weiner. It had nothing to do with WikiLeaks at all.
    Hey, less, Comey had NOTHING on Hillary when he announced, only a few days before the election, the emails on Weiner's machine. It was a Repug dirty trick. You ers can't win without cheating.

    Polls showed Comey's slander changed a LOT of votes.

  20. #20
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ TheSanityAnnex's Avatar
    My Team
    Sacramento Kings
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    21,376
    Hey, less, Comey had NOTHING on Hillary when he announced, only a few days before the election, the emails on Weiner's machine. It was a Repug dirty trick. You ers can't win without cheating.

    Polls showed Comey's slander changed a LOT of votes.
    Hey, less, the FBI is still investigating the Clinton Foundation.

  21. #21
    sha na na na na kneeeees Axl Rose's Avatar
    My Team
    Los Angeles Lakers
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Post Count
    756
    Lol infantile little fake intellectual got

    you sound like every other little baby crying on CNN after the blitz

  22. #22
    my unders, my frgn whites pgardn's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Post Count
    39,469
    The Russians had no idea which way their playing would work.
    Democrats appear to be giving their attempted fiddling way too much credit.
    The Russian point is "we can play with your system". And we will make a point right back. I would really like to know what it is. The list of things we could do is quite large. Might never know, but Putin will.

    As for Trump.
    He won the election fairly even though he says it was rigged. Get over it.

  23. #23
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    What kind of world are we living in when your true intent is exposed and somehow you're the victim?

  24. #24
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ TheSanityAnnex's Avatar
    My Team
    Sacramento Kings
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    21,376
    Did Russia just put its man in the White House? Americans are furiously debating the question as intelligence reports leak, Donald Trump tweets his doubts and Congress vows to investigate.

    As analysts who have spent years studying Russia’s influence campaigns, we’re confident the spooks have it mostly right: The Kremlin ran a sophisticated, multilayered operation that aimed to sow chaos in the U.S. political system, if not to elect Trump outright. But you don’t need a security clearance or a background in spycraft to come to that conclusion. All you need to do is open your eyes.


    So how did Putin do it?


    It wasn’t by hacking election machines or manipulating the results, as some have suggested. That would be too crude. The Kremlin’s canny operatives didn’t change votes; they won them, influencing voters to choose Russia’s preferred outcome by pushing stolen information at just the right time—through slanted, or outright false stories on social media. As we detail in our recent report, based on 30 months of closely watching Russia’s online influence operations and monitoring some 7,000 accounts, the Kremlin’s troll army swarmed the web to spread disinformation and undermine trust in the electoral system.

    1. Pick close contests: In both the British referendum and U.S. presidential votes, Russia happened upon an almost perfectly divided electorate. It took a nudge of just a few percentage points in each case to achieve victory.

    ...

    2. Know your audience: In 2008 and 2012, Barack Obama’s strategists conducted a surgical influence effort, mapping key votes down to the neighborhood level. Russian operatives have borrowed from this playbook and targeted audiences vulnerable to their influence across the West—largely supporters of the “alt-right” and others angered by the perceived effects of globalization, immigration, terrorism and economic hardship. In the U.S., Russia’s blending of semi-overt and covert social media accounts use common hashtags and phrases to create what appear to be conservative Trump supporters or alt-right cheerleaders. These social media personas, whose bios are littered with words like “country,” “Christian,” “America” and “military,” then push pro-Trump hashtags loaded with skewed and fake news at American audiences, helping generate organic Trump support and distrust of the U.S. government.

    3. Start early and be persistent: As early as August 2015, Russian English-language outlets and their social media allies were promoting Trump—at a time when the idea that he could actually win seemed a distant fantasy. And they kept going throughout the Republican primary, surging at key times. Put differently, Russia didn’t just intervene in the general election against Hillary Clinton—it helped him defeat his anti-Moscow GOP rivals, too. The United Kingdom observed a similar campaign. Dating back to the earliest parts of 2015, Russian media outlets incited fear of immigration and promoted Brexit advocate Nigel Farage’s accusations of American manipulation to foster popular support for the British to leave the EU.


    4. Try everything. Stick with what works:
    Today’s Russian propagandists borrow from the playbook of their Soviet forefathers. RT and Sputnik News push political, financial, social and calamitous messages stoking fear and conspiracy into the information environment of any democratic audience su ious or outwardly hostile to Russia. Since the summer of 2015, we’ve observed Russian messaging pushed to groups across the spectrum, the left and the right politically. Anarchists, anti-capitalists, white supremacists and anti-government militias have all received Russian English-language directed propaganda through the targeted application of bots and person-to-person engagement from what appear to be fellow Americans with strong Russian leanings.

    5. Hack and release: Russia’s synchronization of hacking and influence operations provides a one-two punch for manipulating democratic audiences. In the old days, Soviet Kompromat, or compromising materials, were used by KGB agents to encourage Western officials and public figures to speak and act in ways more amenable to Soviet objectives, via threats to expose criminality, corruption or sexual misbehavior. Today, Russia’s hacking teams, two of which security researchers have dubbed Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear, conduct wide-ranging kompromat hacking into thousands of current and former Western government officials, media personalities and national security experts. Russia then strategically releases true, manipulated true, and false information to data dumpsites such as WikiLeaks. These “information nukes” fuel Russian overt propaganda and supply dozens of fringe conspiratorial news sites. Russia’s cyber kompromat playbook appears to have a new target. Germany, the key remaining player in the EU, has already noted Russian hacks against its parliament in 2015, along with a sharp uptick in propaganda ahead of the country’s upcoming elections.


    6. Use brute force to overwhelm adversaries:
    Soviet military doctrine employed the principle of mass to counter Western forces—employing three to four times the artillery of their enemies. Once the Soviets found a break in enemy lines, they’d exploit the breach, occupy a position in the rear area of the enemy and then fight from a defensive position. Today’s Russian social media influence operations employ a similar approach. After using hacked information to craft manipulated truths, Russia propagates and amplifies stories using automated bots.

    7. Win even when you lose. Russia would prefer that its chosen candidates be victorious, but losing is almost as good: Putin and company are happy just to foment chaos, confusion and doubt. It doesn’t even take much. The mere allegation that voter rolls in Illinois and Arizona had been hacked raised concerns of a rigged outcome, lending credibility to wild claims like those the Green Party’s Jill Stein leveled in Wisconsin. Even the Electoral College, historically a rubber stamp, is becoming another partisan battlefield. And now, with many Americans embittered by the nastiest election in memory and squabbling over the very question of Russian meddling, Putin can sit back and admire his handiwork. Because either way, he’s already won.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...lection-214524


    For those of you rationalizing it, this is the methodology.

    Basically, it is a campaign of targeted lies, then you just sit back and let the lack of critical thinking on the part of your target audience do the rest.
    U.S. intelligence officials have reportedly told members of Congress during classified briefings that they believe Russians passed the do ents on to Wikileaks as part of an influence operation to swing the election in favor of Donald Trump.
    But Murray insisted that the DNC and Podesta emails published by Wikileaks did not come from the Russians, and were given to the whistleblowing group by Americans who had authorized access to the information.
    'Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians,' Murray said. 'The source had legal access to the information. The do ents came from inside leaks, not hacks.'
    He said the leakers were motivated by 'disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders.'
    Murray said he retrieved the package from a source during a clandestine meeting in a wooded area near American University, in northwest D.C. He said the individual he met with was not the original person who obtained the information, but an intermediary.
    'I don't understand why the CIA would say the information came from Russian hackers when they must know that isn't true,' he said. 'Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the do ents Wikileaks published did not come from that.'

    Murray was a vocal critic of human rights abuses in Uzbekistan while serving as ambassador between 2002 and 2004, a stance that pitted him against the UK Foreign Office.
    He describes himself as a 'close associate' of Julian Assange and has spoken out in support of the Wikileaks founder who has faced rape allegations and is currently confined to the Ecuadorian embassy in London.
    Assange has similarly disputed that charges that Wikileaks received the leaked emails from Russian sources.
    'The Clinton camp has been able to project a neo-McCarthyist hysteria that Russia is responsible for everything,' Assange told John Pilger during an interview in November.
    'Hillary Clinton has stated multiple times, falsely, that 17 US intelligence agencies had assessed that Russia was the source of our publications. That's false – we can say that the Russian government is not the source.'

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-insiders.html

  25. #25
    Veteran HI-FI's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Post Count
    13,358

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •