|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 04 2017 05:44 a_flayer wrote:
There you go again. A constant flow of misinformation coming from Russia. There is no constant flow of misinformation from Russia that is influencing the election somehow. It's coming from Breitbart (Bannon, Mercer, other rich guys in America). Fox News, infotainment, partisan news, biased news (Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes, whoever is in charge of that shit).
There's a constant flow of misinformation from both Russia and the others you mention. I trust Comey's word on Russia's intent and capability.
|
From my perspective, the Russia issue boils down to a few main points:
1. The Russian government sponsored a hack-and-leak operation that included the DNC leak. While it's possible it was someone else, theoretically, that's the story that lines up best with the evidence to date.
2. However, not all agents in pursuit of pushing this story are without flaw. The data released by the intelligence community is pretty mediocre and we're meant to believe they have a slam-dunk case behind the scenes they aren't telling us. The "private investigator" case is much more convincing, with the only questionable factor being that most of the people pushing that narrative most strongly are those paid by the hacked.
3. The FBI and others have shown a pretty faulty knowledge of the Russian situation in general, which would be apparent to anyone who pays enough attention. Listen to Comey or Rogers talk about Russia for more than 10 minutes and you'll see that they have a fundamentally insufficient understanding of Russian government operations. This leads me to believe that what is behind the scenes is also kind of flawed and full of misdirections. I also suspect they are very much lacking sufficient Russian language personnel considering that they seem to use RT and Sputnik as their primary indicator of the "government position" which is pretty weaksauce.
4. Several of Trump's core associates have significant inappropriate ties to Russia. While the evidence suggests that it's mostly because they're shitty moneygrabbers and/or incompetent, it would be reasonable to investigate a larger conspiracy.
5. It's equally true, however, that there are those who cling to the Russia issue as a tool either for undermining Trump or for personal comfort. The Hillary Clinton camp has a hard time coming to terms with their loss and blame Russia in large part for it. The Democrats and center-right legislators have problems with Trump's more unpleasant nominees and see it as a way to get them removed (was sufficiently bad in the case of Flynn, was just a bizarre exercise in stretching the truth with Sessions). Also those who want a more "active" foreign policy.
6. The overall result looks like a right mess. There's a genuine issue to investigate but it's enveloped in a shroud of incompetence, political motivations, and inefficient intelligence. The whole "fake news" issue doesn't help add any clarity to it either.
|
Wikileaks CIA release, part whatever it is now: https://wikileaks.org/vault7/#Scribbles
Another kind of middling release. This one is about a tool used to place a tracker on documents such as those that would be taken by whistleblowers.,
|
To be clear, I don’t think that any of Trumps goons took money from Russia to put in him office. This is going to turn out to be so much more banal. That people like Flynn took the money and didn’t think he would win. And when he did, they didn’t think they would get caught because they were in the White House.
|
On May 04 2017 06:15 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2017 05:44 a_flayer wrote:
There you go again. A constant flow of misinformation coming from Russia. There is no constant flow of misinformation from Russia that is influencing the election somehow. It's coming from Breitbart (Bannon, Mercer, other rich guys in America). Fox News, infotainment, partisan news, biased news (Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes, whoever is in charge of that shit). There's a constant flow of misinformation from both Russia and the others you mention. I trust Comey's word on Russia's intent and capability.
So you agree with the FBI assessments that I quoted from the ODNI report? Americans who attended the Occupy Wallstreet movement and called for a revolution are more or less equal to Russian propagandists? The two-party system does not fail to represent about 1/3rd of the American population (that's less than the amount of people who don't even bother voting in presidential elections), and if you say that on TV you are spreading Russian propaganda?
Also, the FBI actually said in that report that they do not know how much success/influence the Russian had in their media campaign. They could not assess this accurately. So what's that about capability that Comey said?
|
On May 04 2017 06:24 Plansix wrote:
To be clear, I don’t think that any of Trumps goons took money from Russia to put in him office. This is going to turn out to be so much more banal. That people like Flynn took the money and didn’t think he would win. And when he did, they didn’t think they would get caught because they were in the White House.
Which contradicts your first sentence.
|
On May 04 2017 05:51 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2017 05:44 a_flayer wrote:
There you go again. A constant flow of misinformation coming from Russia. There is no constant flow of misinformation from Russia that is influencing the election somehow. It's coming from Breitbart (Bannon, Mercer, other rich guys in America). Fox News, infotainment, partisan news, biased news (Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes, whoever is in charge of that shit). I am sorry my views of the situation does not line up with yours.
Do you have a definition by the FBI regarding what constitutes Russian misinformation other than the one I've gleaned from the ODNI report? The one in the ODNI report may accurately represent a Russian intent to sow dissent, but many of the opinions and criticisms listed are perfectly valid. That's not misinformation or fake news, and borderline propaganda at best.
|
On May 04 2017 06:37 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2017 06:15 Doodsmack wrote:On May 04 2017 05:44 a_flayer wrote:
There you go again. A constant flow of misinformation coming from Russia. There is no constant flow of misinformation from Russia that is influencing the election somehow. It's coming from Breitbart (Bannon, Mercer, other rich guys in America). Fox News, infotainment, partisan news, biased news (Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes, whoever is in charge of that shit). There's a constant flow of misinformation from both Russia and the others you mention. I trust Comey's word on Russia's intent and capability. So you agree with the FBI assessments that I quoted from the ODNI report? Americans who attended the Occupy Wallstreet movement and called for a revolution are more or less equal to Russian propagandists? The two-party system does not fail to represent about 1/3rd of the American population (that's less than the amount of people who don't even bother voting in presidential elections), and if you say that on TV you are spreading Russian propaganda? Also, the FBI actually said in that report that they do not know how much success/influence the Russian had in their media campaign. They could not assess this accurately. So what's that about capability that Comey said?
I think you are conflating some things because Russia could have a propaganda effort that happens to align with views expressed in the past by various people in the US. I'm only saying Russia's campaign had influence, and while the FBI doesn't know how much influence it had, I'm sure the FBI would say there was some amount of influence.
|
Btw what happens if our diplomats/leadership are kidnapped or assasinated when traveling abroad, especially to unstable countries? Would it be all out war --> nuclear catastrophe?
|
On May 04 2017 08:03 biology]major wrote:
Btw what happens if our diplomats/leadership are kidnapped or assasinated when traveling abroad, especially to unstable countries? Would it be all out war --> nuclear catastrophe?
Depends on who Kills or kidnaps our diplomats or leadership. The Iran hostage crisis didn't lead to out and out war so I doubt unless it was a state actor with previous planning on it then yes otherwise no.
|
On May 04 2017 07:11 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2017 06:37 a_flayer wrote:On May 04 2017 06:15 Doodsmack wrote:On May 04 2017 05:44 a_flayer wrote:
There you go again. A constant flow of misinformation coming from Russia. There is no constant flow of misinformation from Russia that is influencing the election somehow. It's coming from Breitbart (Bannon, Mercer, other rich guys in America). Fox News, infotainment, partisan news, biased news (Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes, whoever is in charge of that shit). There's a constant flow of misinformation from both Russia and the others you mention. I trust Comey's word on Russia's intent and capability. So you agree with the FBI assessments that I quoted from the ODNI report? Americans who attended the Occupy Wallstreet movement and called for a revolution are more or less equal to Russian propagandists? The two-party system does not fail to represent about 1/3rd of the American population (that's less than the amount of people who don't even bother voting in presidential elections), and if you say that on TV you are spreading Russian propaganda? Also, the FBI actually said in that report that they do not know how much success/influence the Russian had in their media campaign. They could not assess this accurately. So what's that about capability that Comey said? I think you are conflating some things because Russia could have a propaganda effort that happens to align with views expressed in the past by various people in the US. I'm only saying Russia's campaign had influence, and while the FBI doesn't know how much influence it had, I'm sure the FBI would say there was some amount of influence.
I'm not conflating things at all. I understand perfectly well the nuances surrounding this discussion.
I'll ask you the same that I asked Plansix: do you have a definition by the FBI regarding what constitutes Russian misinformation other than the one I've gleaned from the ODNI report? The one in the ODNI report may accurately represent positions that the Russians use with an intent to sow dissent, but many of the opinions and criticisms listed are perfectly valid. That's definitely not misinformation or fake news, and borderline propaganda at best (based on funding alone). So unless you have another more sensible definition that the FBI uses, then I cannot agree with the FBI assessment that Russia is responsible for widespread misinformation regarding issues surrounding the election.
In terms of influence, I'd say actual Russian misinformation and fake news (which does exist on RT America and other forms of Russian-funded media, just as American-based misinformation exists on CNN, or other sources - deliberate or not), would account for something like 0.001% of influence in terms of stopping people from voting or changing peoples mind. Something absurdly low. Probably lower than that. Admittedly, its a made up percentage.
The remaining 99.9~% of people who decide not to vote or are independent enough from both of the parties to actually change their minds between Trump or Hillary would be affected by the reality of the political situation itself which they'd glean from American media sources (in the broadest sense of the word). That includes influence from RT America to support American opinions such as the 3rd party voters which the FBI also suggested to be Russian propaganda in the ODNI report (which is just utter tripe), and influence from things like Breitbart and SuperPAC ads both courtesy of people like my good American friend Mr Mercer.
The actual Russian propaganda regarding those American dissenting opinions listed in the ODNI report only exists within the social media sphere as a result of Russian-funded bots/comments/retweets. It cannot come directly from RT America, because these are American reporters and Americans who share their honest perspectives, and people who watch them might share in those opinions. If you want to call that Russian propaganda, may I suggest you re-institute the HUAC?
The social media sphere does not not have this qualifier, and can thus easily be classified as genuine Russian propaganda. However, there is no way that only Russia thought to use methods like that. Or would only Russia be smart enough to employ data mining and targeted ads in a political campaign? I think not, and Mercer's activities are clear evidence of this (and that influence is equally unmeasurable). The Russian measure of influence in social media could be bigger in relative terms compared to their influence in the mainstream TV media (which was evidenced by the ODNI report), but they did not list websites like Infowars/Breitbart, their social media presence or other absurdly anti-Clinton media - they just compared RT America with CNN and the like.
But even if you say everything on RT is Russian propaganda because it funded by the Russian state, then the amount of influence they have is very likely to be negligible. How many people really watch that? How many people would be subjected to their Twitter bot spam? Besides, I've held many of the opinions I've seen on RT America way before I ever saw them on there, and so do most of the people I know who share in those opinions.
I guess it's possible that Breitbart also receives funding from the Russian state or Russian oligarchs acting on behalf of the state, which would complicate things. I don't know though, it seems like there's plenty of big-moneyed American names behind it. This whole culture war thing between more secular liberal ideas and religion-based conservative ideas is something that is happening across the whole planet, at any rate, so to lob it all in under the nomer "Russian propaganda" would be absurd.
|
The Democratic Party should not impose support for abortion rights as a litmus test on its candidates, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Tuesday, because it needs a broad and inclusive agenda to win back the socially conservative voters who helped elect President Trump.
“This is the Democratic Party. This is not a rubber-stamp party,” Pelosi said in an interview with Washington Post reporters.
“I grew up Nancy D’Alesandro, in Baltimore, Maryland; in Little Italy; in a very devout Catholic family; fiercely patriotic; proud of our town and heritage, and staunchly Democratic,” she added, referring to the fact that she is the daughter and sister of former mayors of that city. “Most of those people — my family, extended family — are not pro-choice. You think I’m kicking them out of the Democratic Party?” [...]
Newly installed Democratic National Committee Chairman Thomas Perez and former presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) came under criticism by abortion rights advocates during their “unity tour” last month, when they appeared together at a rally for an Omaha mayoral candidate who has sponsored legislature bills to restrict abortion.
Perez responded with a statement declaring that support for abortion rights is “nonnegotiable” for Democrats, and that they should speak with “one voice” on it.
WaPo
Pelosi pushes back against Perez.
|
On May 04 2017 07:09 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2017 05:51 Plansix wrote:On May 04 2017 05:44 a_flayer wrote:
There you go again. A constant flow of misinformation coming from Russia. There is no constant flow of misinformation from Russia that is influencing the election somehow. It's coming from Breitbart (Bannon, Mercer, other rich guys in America). Fox News, infotainment, partisan news, biased news (Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes, whoever is in charge of that shit). I am sorry my views of the situation does not line up with yours. Do you have a definition by the FBI regarding what constitutes Russian misinformation other than the one I've gleaned from the ODNI report? The one in the ODNI report may accurately represent a Russian intent to sow dissent, but many of the opinions and criticisms listed are perfectly valid. That's not misinformation or fake news, and borderline propaganda at best.
But you keep avoiding the part where they hacked one of our political parties, stole a bunch of information and released it to wikileaks.
|
Apparently they are going to vote on it without knowing how much it will cost or who will lose coverage?
This is what terrible governance looks like.
|
On May 04 2017 08:53 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2017 07:09 a_flayer wrote:On May 04 2017 05:51 Plansix wrote:On May 04 2017 05:44 a_flayer wrote:
There you go again. A constant flow of misinformation coming from Russia. There is no constant flow of misinformation from Russia that is influencing the election somehow. It's coming from Breitbart (Bannon, Mercer, other rich guys in America). Fox News, infotainment, partisan news, biased news (Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes, whoever is in charge of that shit). I am sorry my views of the situation does not line up with yours. Do you have a definition by the FBI regarding what constitutes Russian misinformation other than the one I've gleaned from the ODNI report? The one in the ODNI report may accurately represent a Russian intent to sow dissent, but many of the opinions and criticisms listed are perfectly valid. That's not misinformation or fake news, and borderline propaganda at best. But you keep avoiding the part where they hacked one of our political parties, stole a bunch of information and released it to wikileaks.
No, I definitely agree that's a level of undue interference that needs to be prevented. All hacking is bad, simple as that. I don't think I've avoided this at all (although there remains a level of uncertainty, I'm certainly willing to accept it as truth). What I've said before about this is that other people have said (you yourself, I believe, may have even said this) that the information within those leaks shouldn't dissuade anyone from voting Hillary. It is benign. So how could it have such a big influence that it helped sway the election? Well, I'll tell you how: it can have that kind of influence because the benign information is repackaged into misinformation by the opposing party who uses SuperPACs and American media to spread the lies.
Now, tell me again, since you avoided the question by asking me a question I'd already answered before: what constitutes Russian misinformation according to you? Is it the quasi-lies that SuperPACs and conservative media (Fox, Breitbart, etc) make up based on leaked information to convince their followers not to vote for Hillary? Because if that's what you think, then you do not agree with what the FBI said, as far as I can tell (again, based on what they said in the ODNI report).
|
On May 04 2017 09:07 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2017 08:53 Plansix wrote:On May 04 2017 07:09 a_flayer wrote:On May 04 2017 05:51 Plansix wrote:On May 04 2017 05:44 a_flayer wrote:
There you go again. A constant flow of misinformation coming from Russia. There is no constant flow of misinformation from Russia that is influencing the election somehow. It's coming from Breitbart (Bannon, Mercer, other rich guys in America). Fox News, infotainment, partisan news, biased news (Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes, whoever is in charge of that shit). I am sorry my views of the situation does not line up with yours. Do you have a definition by the FBI regarding what constitutes Russian misinformation other than the one I've gleaned from the ODNI report? The one in the ODNI report may accurately represent a Russian intent to sow dissent, but many of the opinions and criticisms listed are perfectly valid. That's not misinformation or fake news, and borderline propaganda at best. But you keep avoiding the part where they hacked one of our political parties, stole a bunch of information and released it to wikileaks. No, I definitely agree that's a level of undue interference that needs to be prevented. All hacking is bad, simple as that. I don't think I've avoided this at all (although there remains a level of uncertainty, I'm certainly willing to accept it as truth). What I've said before about this is that other people have said (you yourself, I believe, may have even said this) that the information within those leaks shouldn't dissuade anyone from voting Hillary. It is benign. So how could it have such a big influence that it helped sway the election? Well, I'll tell you how: it can have that kind of influence because the benign information is repackaged into misinformation by the opposing party who uses SuperPACs and American media to spread the lies. Now, tell me again, since you avoided the question by asking me a question I'd already answered before: what constitutes Russian misinformation according to you? Is it the quasi-lies that SuperPACs and conservative media (Fox, Breitbart, etc) make up based on leaked information to convince their followers not to vote for Hillary? Because if that's what you think, then you do not agree with what the FBI said, as far as I can tell (again, based on what they said in the ODNI report).
I have said repeatedly that I am not confident that it had a significant influence on the results. But I am not comfortable placing the bet either and want it addressed. An ongoing effort by extra-national actors to influence elections will erode trust in the process and that as ended functioning democracies before. We cannot have our political parties getting hacked by Russia or anyone else every single election.
|
Does "Russian misinformation" match the descriptions of the FBI that I lifted from the ODNI report?
If no, what definition of Russian misinformation do you uphold to say they were spreading misinformation?
I am asking to be informed, because I cannot comprehend that someone would suggest that the things the FBI listed as Russian propaganda on RT America (which is what like half the ODNI report was about) would actually qualify as "Russian misinformation" when they (and you) say that Russia has been spreading misinformation. I am certain that if you believe they had been spreading misinformation regarding the elections, you are using another definition than the one I gleaned from the ODNI report.
Can you define this for me? Maybe give me an example. Anything.
|
On May 04 2017 09:23 a_flayer wrote:
Does "Russian misinformation" match the descriptions of the FBI that I lifted from the ODNI report?
If no, what definition of Russian misinformation do you uphold to say they were spreading misinformation?
a_flayer, I really don't care any more. Every time this topic comes up in this thread the discussion is so tortured that I stop giving a shit. It isn't you specifically, but any time that the election and HRC become a topic there are folks just ready to pounce and make sure we still blame HRC for losing. It is exhausting and I just don't really care.
|
Why does this carter page guy keep making public appearances.. he's so bad at defending himself. Everything he says sounds like a lie just because of how he says it and his own inconsistencies. He should go hide for a while and talk to the Feds when necessary.
He's getting absolutely killed by anderson cooper right now
|
On May 04 2017 10:05 biology]major wrote:
Why does this carter page guy keep making public appearances.. he's so bad at defending himself. Everything he says sounds like a lie just because of how he says it and his own inconsistencies. He should go hide for a while and talk to the Feds when necessary.
He's getting absolutely killed by anderson right now
dunno; I'm guessing he does it because he likes being on tv and/or gets paid to appear or something?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
