US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7468

On May 04 2017 08:18 a_flayer wrote:

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.

On May 09 2017 08:06 KwarK wrote:
Cambridge Analytica took a shitton of Cruz's money and gave him nothing to show for it. Right now it's not clear that they're able to deliver on their claims.

On May 09 2017 09:07 Danglars wrote:

Maybe forty percent of America of America is waiting. But he is absolutely incorrect in regards to the FBI investigation; it's taxpayer funded and everybody wants to know if Trump actually coordinated with Russian agents to hack and release. The craziness and furor regarding it must end, though maybe not before Comey report and possibly not before Trump 2020 gets full into swing. The same kind of people that thought 538 severely underestimated Clinton's chances at 65% now think the country is united in wanting this pace of articles, unsubstantiated leaks, the whole nine yards. The opposition has to grow some balls and man up to their systemic problems in reporting on this political climate, though NYT Bret Stephens hiring (willing to expand their political reporting) did signal some overtures in the other direction.

On May 09 2017 10:30 IgnE wrote:


i dont remember you being so anti-furor and tax spending during benghazi

On May 09 2017 09:42 Danglars wrote:

ACLU lawyer says a different candidate might have issued Trump's EO and it would be constitutional in that case, vs unconstitutional in Trump's case. This is the fourth circuit court of appeals. I had no idea the identity of the person in the office influences what constitutional actions he or she could take.

On May 09 2017 10:51 Danglars wrote:

Ho hum, the Obama administration lied about the issue, imprisoned the YouTube creator, but who are we kidding? The narrative became how Republicans grandstanded in the hearing, not the facts of the case. Only old farts remember Clinton and Rice propagating stories they knew to be false; let's move on to a more dependable liar in the White House.