|
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. |
Every time I wonder how we got played so hard by Russia, I just need to come back to this thread and see the tribalism in action.
|
It doesn't matter how much is spent or whether the effect of the interference into democratic election was more effective than expected but then again, for supposed patriots, the wellbeing of American democracy isn't high on Legalord's or Danglars list of importance.
|
On October 18 2017 00:43 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
It doesn't matter how much is spent or whether the effect of the interference into democratic election was more effective than expected but then again, for supposed patriots, the wellbeing of American democracy isn't high on Legalord's or Danglars list of importance.
Once the evidence was overwhelming, they admit that it might be effective or it had some impact. But they must jump into every discussion and make sure that we do not overstate how effective it was and call out anyone who is freaked out by it. Once forced to give a little ground, they go back to denying it is a real issue worth discussion.
|
On October 18 2017 00:39 Doodsmack wrote:
The response campaign is to Russia's detriment because they can't get any concessions. There's been no movement on sanctions despite the Trump administration's desire to do so.
A small price to pay. Nor is it very clear that that was the goal.
|
Spending money to divide people is 100000000000000000000000000000x easier than spending money to unite people. Presidential campaigns are about inspiring confidence and positive emotions in a candidate. All Russia needed to do was make people fight, be skeptical of each other, and think of each other as other thans. That's a slam dunk and easy as shit. Nothing has to be accurate, dignified or anything. You can really just go balls deep because your only objective is to polarize a population.
|
i mean and the best part is when having to face that the public was pushed towards this nationalistic xenophobic candidate at the hands
of another country the reaction is further nationalism, insisting the voting populace was already as nationalistic! and it’s the dems fault!
oh well.
On October 18 2017 00:26 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2017 23:54 LegalLord wrote:
If $100k on Facebook beat out $1B on campaigning then we really should just applaud Putin's efficiency and wonder why no one else ever thought of it. If the American media/DNC response campaign of illegitimacy was predicted, he's a damn whiz. But I don't think far-sighted Russians could've seen the size and scope of that response.
.
|
On October 18 2017 00:23 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2017 00:22 LegalLord wrote:On October 18 2017 00:12 brian wrote:On October 18 2017 00:09 LegalLord wrote:On October 18 2017 00:04 Wulfey_LA wrote:On October 17 2017 23:54 LegalLord wrote:
If $100k on Facebook beat out $1B on campaigning then we really should just applaud Putin's efficiency and wonder why no one else ever thought of it. "But it wasn't that much collusion" is going to be a bad look when it comes out that Cambridge Analytica was pumping geotargeting data to a Russian psyops campaign. That's not what I'm saying though. Trump is a shitbag. His surrogates are shitbags. Shitbags can be bought and coerced into betraying their country for a small tinkle of cash. But if $100k in ads is so powerful, why is $100Ms of cash not completely and utterly destroying all opposition? well, one reason is that we have laws about what ads a campaign can run. if a campaign ran an ad like those we’re seeing in the compromised facebook ads, they’d go to jail. so they just can’t afford that kind of efficiency. lying comes cheap. geico spends billions in ads. they could spend a lot less if their ads could claim their competitors were stealing from their customers’ grandmas backed up with falsified ‘proof’ and people would eat that shit up like candy. Interesting thing is that that's exactly how some organizations advertise. and i bet it’s super effective before they wind up in jail. unfortunately russians have no fear of this consequence, so their money stretches a lot further.
I'll let you know if anyone sees any prison time any time soon. My money's on "nah."
|
On October 18 2017 00:56 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2017 00:23 brian wrote:On October 18 2017 00:22 LegalLord wrote:On October 18 2017 00:12 brian wrote:On October 18 2017 00:09 LegalLord wrote:On October 18 2017 00:04 Wulfey_LA wrote:On October 17 2017 23:54 LegalLord wrote:
If $100k on Facebook beat out $1B on campaigning then we really should just applaud Putin's efficiency and wonder why no one else ever thought of it. "But it wasn't that much collusion" is going to be a bad look when it comes out that Cambridge Analytica was pumping geotargeting data to a Russian psyops campaign. That's not what I'm saying though. Trump is a shitbag. His surrogates are shitbags. Shitbags can be bought and coerced into betraying their country for a small tinkle of cash. But if $100k in ads is so powerful, why is $100Ms of cash not completely and utterly destroying all opposition? well, one reason is that we have laws about what ads a campaign can run. if a campaign ran an ad like those we’re seeing in the compromised facebook ads, they’d go to jail. so they just can’t afford that kind of efficiency. lying comes cheap. geico spends billions in ads. they could spend a lot less if their ads could claim their competitors were stealing from their customers’ grandmas backed up with falsified ‘proof’ and people would eat that shit up like candy. Interesting thing is that that's exactly how some organizations advertise. and i bet it’s super effective before they wind up in jail. unfortunately russians have no fear of this consequence, so their money stretches a lot further. I'll let you know if anyone sees any prison time any time soon. My money's on "nah."
of course not. they’re russian. that’s the point.
|
On October 18 2017 00:57 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2017 00:56 LegalLord wrote:On October 18 2017 00:23 brian wrote:On October 18 2017 00:22 LegalLord wrote:On October 18 2017 00:12 brian wrote:On October 18 2017 00:09 LegalLord wrote:On October 18 2017 00:04 Wulfey_LA wrote:On October 17 2017 23:54 LegalLord wrote:
If $100k on Facebook beat out $1B on campaigning then we really should just applaud Putin's efficiency and wonder why no one else ever thought of it. "But it wasn't that much collusion" is going to be a bad look when it comes out that Cambridge Analytica was pumping geotargeting data to a Russian psyops campaign. That's not what I'm saying though. Trump is a shitbag. His surrogates are shitbags. Shitbags can be bought and coerced into betraying their country for a small tinkle of cash. But if $100k in ads is so powerful, why is $100Ms of cash not completely and utterly destroying all opposition? well, one reason is that we have laws about what ads a campaign can run. if a campaign ran an ad like those we’re seeing in the compromised facebook ads, they’d go to jail. so they just can’t afford that kind of efficiency. lying comes cheap. geico spends billions in ads. they could spend a lot less if their ads could claim their competitors were stealing from their customers’ grandmas backed up with falsified ‘proof’ and people would eat that shit up like candy. Interesting thing is that that's exactly how some organizations advertise. and i bet it’s super effective before they wind up in jail. unfortunately russians have no fear of this consequence, so their money stretches a lot further. I'll let you know if anyone sees any prison time any time soon. My money's on "nah." of course not. they’re russian. that’s the point.
The non-Russian, fully US-based American ones I mean. So far haven't seen a single one ever see consequences for efficient disinformation. It's actually quite brilliant.
|
Before the Obama administration approved a controversial deal in 2010 giving Moscow control of a large swath of American uranium, the FBI had gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the United States, according to government documents and interviews.
Federal agents used a confidential U.S. witness working inside the Russian nuclear industry to gather extensive financial records, make secret recordings and intercept emails as early as 2009 that showed Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, FBI and court documents show.
They also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill.
The racketeering scheme was conducted “with the consent of higher level officials” in Russia who “shared the proceeds” from the kickbacks, one agent declared in an affidavit years later.
Rather than bring immediate charges in 2010, however, the Department of Justice (DOJ) continued investigating the matter for nearly four more years, essentially leaving the American public and Congress in the dark about Russian nuclear corruption on U.S. soil during a period when the Obama administration made two major decisions benefitting Putin’s commercial nuclear ambitions.
The first decision occurred in October 2010, when the State Department and government agencies on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States unanimously approved the partial sale of Canadian mining company Uranium One to the Russian nuclear giant Rosatom, giving Moscow control of more than 20 percent of America’s uranium supply.
When this sale was used by Trump on the campaign trail last year, Hillary Clinton’s spokesman said she was not involved in the committee review and noted the State Department official who handled it said she “never intervened ... on any [Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States] matter.”
In 2011, the administration gave approval for Rosatom’s Tenex subsidiary to sell commercial uranium to U.S. nuclear power plants in a partnership with the United States Enrichment Corp. Before then, Tenex had been limited to selling U.S. nuclear power plants reprocessed uranium recovered from dismantled Soviet nuclear weapons under the 1990s Megatons to Megawatts peace program.
“The Russians were compromising American contractors in the nuclear industry with kickbacks and extortion threats, all of which raised legitimate national security concerns. And none of that evidence got aired before the Obama administration made those decisions,” a person who worked on the case told The Hill, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution by U.S. or Russian officials.
The Obama administration’s decision to approve Rosatom’s purchase of Uranium One has been a source of political controversy since 2015.
That’s when conservative author Peter Schweitzer and The New York Times documented how Bill Clinton collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in Russian speaking fees and his charitable foundation collected millions in donations from parties interested in the deal while Hillary Clinton presided on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.
The Obama administration and the Clintons defended their actions at the time, insisting there was no evidence that any Russians or donors engaged in wrongdoing and there was no national security reason for any member of the committee to oppose the Uranium One deal.
But FBI, Energy Department and court documents reviewed by The Hill show the FBI in fact had gathered substantial evidence well before the committee’s decision that Vadim Mikerin — the main Russian overseeing Putin’s nuclear expansion inside the United States — was engaged in wrongdoing starting in 2009.
[...]
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/355749-fbi-uncovered-russian-bribery-plot-before-obama-administration#bottom-story-socials
|
On October 18 2017 01:00 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +Before the Obama administration approved a controversial deal in 2010 giving Moscow control of a large swath of American uranium, the FBI had gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the United States, according to government documents and interviews.
Federal agents used a confidential U.S. witness working inside the Russian nuclear industry to gather extensive financial records, make secret recordings and intercept emails as early as 2009 that showed Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, FBI and court documents show.
They also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill.
The racketeering scheme was conducted “with the consent of higher level officials” in Russia who “shared the proceeds” from the kickbacks, one agent declared in an affidavit years later.
Rather than bring immediate charges in 2010, however, the Department of Justice (DOJ) continued investigating the matter for nearly four more years, essentially leaving the American public and Congress in the dark about Russian nuclear corruption on U.S. soil during a period when the Obama administration made two major decisions benefitting Putin’s commercial nuclear ambitions.
The first decision occurred in October 2010, when the State Department and government agencies on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States unanimously approved the partial sale of Canadian mining company Uranium One to the Russian nuclear giant Rosatom, giving Moscow control of more than 20 percent of America’s uranium supply.
When this sale was used by Trump on the campaign trail last year, Hillary Clinton’s spokesman said she was not involved in the committee review and noted the State Department official who handled it said she “never intervened ... on any [Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States] matter.”
In 2011, the administration gave approval for Rosatom’s Tenex subsidiary to sell commercial uranium to U.S. nuclear power plants in a partnership with the United States Enrichment Corp. Before then, Tenex had been limited to selling U.S. nuclear power plants reprocessed uranium recovered from dismantled Soviet nuclear weapons under the 1990s Megatons to Megawatts peace program.
“The Russians were compromising American contractors in the nuclear industry with kickbacks and extortion threats, all of which raised legitimate national security concerns. And none of that evidence got aired before the Obama administration made those decisions,” a person who worked on the case told The Hill, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution by U.S. or Russian officials.
The Obama administration’s decision to approve Rosatom’s purchase of Uranium One has been a source of political controversy since 2015.
That’s when conservative author Peter Schweitzer and The New York Times documented how Bill Clinton collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in Russian speaking fees and his charitable foundation collected millions in donations from parties interested in the deal while Hillary Clinton presided on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.
The Obama administration and the Clintons defended their actions at the time, insisting there was no evidence that any Russians or donors engaged in wrongdoing and there was no national security reason for any member of the committee to oppose the Uranium One deal.
But FBI, Energy Department and court documents reviewed by The Hill show the FBI in fact had gathered substantial evidence well before the committee’s decision that Vadim Mikerin — the main Russian overseeing Putin’s nuclear expansion inside the United States — was engaged in wrongdoing starting in 2009.
[...]
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/355749-fbi-uncovered-russian-bribery-plot-before-obama-administration#bottom-story-socials
Wow. Is this huge? This looks huge.
|
On October 18 2017 00:59 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2017 00:57 brian wrote:On October 18 2017 00:56 LegalLord wrote:On October 18 2017 00:23 brian wrote:On October 18 2017 00:22 LegalLord wrote:On October 18 2017 00:12 brian wrote:On October 18 2017 00:09 LegalLord wrote:On October 18 2017 00:04 Wulfey_LA wrote:On October 17 2017 23:54 LegalLord wrote:
If $100k on Facebook beat out $1B on campaigning then we really should just applaud Putin's efficiency and wonder why no one else ever thought of it. "But it wasn't that much collusion" is going to be a bad look when it comes out that Cambridge Analytica was pumping geotargeting data to a Russian psyops campaign. That's not what I'm saying though. Trump is a shitbag. His surrogates are shitbags. Shitbags can be bought and coerced into betraying their country for a small tinkle of cash. But if $100k in ads is so powerful, why is $100Ms of cash not completely and utterly destroying all opposition? well, one reason is that we have laws about what ads a campaign can run. if a campaign ran an ad like those we’re seeing in the compromised facebook ads, they’d go to jail. so they just can’t afford that kind of efficiency. lying comes cheap. geico spends billions in ads. they could spend a lot less if their ads could claim their competitors were stealing from their customers’ grandmas backed up with falsified ‘proof’ and people would eat that shit up like candy. Interesting thing is that that's exactly how some organizations advertise. and i bet it’s super effective before they wind up in jail. unfortunately russians have no fear of this consequence, so their money stretches a lot further. I'll let you know if anyone sees any prison time any time soon. My money's on "nah." of course not. they’re russian. that’s the point. The non-Russian, fully US-based American ones I mean. So far haven't seen a single one ever see consequences for efficient disinformation. It's actually quite brilliant.
So you acknowledge that there was efficient disinformation which could have an outsize impact compared to a fairly small amount ($100k) being spent?
|
On October 18 2017 01:00 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +Before the Obama administration approved a controversial deal in 2010 giving Moscow control of a large swath of American uranium, the FBI had gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the United States, according to government documents and interviews.
Federal agents used a confidential U.S. witness working inside the Russian nuclear industry to gather extensive financial records, make secret recordings and intercept emails as early as 2009 that showed Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, FBI and court documents show.
They also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill.
The racketeering scheme was conducted “with the consent of higher level officials” in Russia who “shared the proceeds” from the kickbacks, one agent declared in an affidavit years later.
Rather than bring immediate charges in 2010, however, the Department of Justice (DOJ) continued investigating the matter for nearly four more years, essentially leaving the American public and Congress in the dark about Russian nuclear corruption on U.S. soil during a period when the Obama administration made two major decisions benefitting Putin’s commercial nuclear ambitions.
The first decision occurred in October 2010, when the State Department and government agencies on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States unanimously approved the partial sale of Canadian mining company Uranium One to the Russian nuclear giant Rosatom, giving Moscow control of more than 20 percent of America’s uranium supply.
When this sale was used by Trump on the campaign trail last year, Hillary Clinton’s spokesman said she was not involved in the committee review and noted the State Department official who handled it said she “never intervened ... on any [Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States] matter.”
In 2011, the administration gave approval for Rosatom’s Tenex subsidiary to sell commercial uranium to U.S. nuclear power plants in a partnership with the United States Enrichment Corp. Before then, Tenex had been limited to selling U.S. nuclear power plants reprocessed uranium recovered from dismantled Soviet nuclear weapons under the 1990s Megatons to Megawatts peace program.
“The Russians were compromising American contractors in the nuclear industry with kickbacks and extortion threats, all of which raised legitimate national security concerns. And none of that evidence got aired before the Obama administration made those decisions,” a person who worked on the case told The Hill, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution by U.S. or Russian officials.
The Obama administration’s decision to approve Rosatom’s purchase of Uranium One has been a source of political controversy since 2015.
That’s when conservative author Peter Schweitzer and The New York Times documented how Bill Clinton collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in Russian speaking fees and his charitable foundation collected millions in donations from parties interested in the deal while Hillary Clinton presided on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.
The Obama administration and the Clintons defended their actions at the time, insisting there was no evidence that any Russians or donors engaged in wrongdoing and there was no national security reason for any member of the committee to oppose the Uranium One deal.
But FBI, Energy Department and court documents reviewed by The Hill show the FBI in fact had gathered substantial evidence well before the committee’s decision that Vadim Mikerin — the main Russian overseeing Putin’s nuclear expansion inside the United States — was engaged in wrongdoing starting in 2009.
[...]
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/355749-fbi-uncovered-russian-bribery-plot-before-obama-administration#bottom-story-socials
It sounds like someone spent a lot of money burying that information to make sure congress did not catch wind of it. I wonder who made the decision at the justice department to keep investigating for 4 more years?
|
On October 18 2017 01:09 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2017 01:00 Nevuk wrote:Before the Obama administration approved a controversial deal in 2010 giving Moscow control of a large swath of American uranium, the FBI had gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the United States, according to government documents and interviews.
Federal agents used a confidential U.S. witness working inside the Russian nuclear industry to gather extensive financial records, make secret recordings and intercept emails as early as 2009 that showed Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, FBI and court documents show.
They also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill.
The racketeering scheme was conducted “with the consent of higher level officials” in Russia who “shared the proceeds” from the kickbacks, one agent declared in an affidavit years later.
Rather than bring immediate charges in 2010, however, the Department of Justice (DOJ) continued investigating the matter for nearly four more years, essentially leaving the American public and Congress in the dark about Russian nuclear corruption on U.S. soil during a period when the Obama administration made two major decisions benefitting Putin’s commercial nuclear ambitions.
The first decision occurred in October 2010, when the State Department and government agencies on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States unanimously approved the partial sale of Canadian mining company Uranium One to the Russian nuclear giant Rosatom, giving Moscow control of more than 20 percent of America’s uranium supply.
When this sale was used by Trump on the campaign trail last year, Hillary Clinton’s spokesman said she was not involved in the committee review and noted the State Department official who handled it said she “never intervened ... on any [Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States] matter.”
In 2011, the administration gave approval for Rosatom’s Tenex subsidiary to sell commercial uranium to U.S. nuclear power plants in a partnership with the United States Enrichment Corp. Before then, Tenex had been limited to selling U.S. nuclear power plants reprocessed uranium recovered from dismantled Soviet nuclear weapons under the 1990s Megatons to Megawatts peace program.
“The Russians were compromising American contractors in the nuclear industry with kickbacks and extortion threats, all of which raised legitimate national security concerns. And none of that evidence got aired before the Obama administration made those decisions,” a person who worked on the case told The Hill, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution by U.S. or Russian officials.
The Obama administration’s decision to approve Rosatom’s purchase of Uranium One has been a source of political controversy since 2015.
That’s when conservative author Peter Schweitzer and The New York Times documented how Bill Clinton collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in Russian speaking fees and his charitable foundation collected millions in donations from parties interested in the deal while Hillary Clinton presided on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.
The Obama administration and the Clintons defended their actions at the time, insisting there was no evidence that any Russians or donors engaged in wrongdoing and there was no national security reason for any member of the committee to oppose the Uranium One deal.
But FBI, Energy Department and court documents reviewed by The Hill show the FBI in fact had gathered substantial evidence well before the committee’s decision that Vadim Mikerin — the main Russian overseeing Putin’s nuclear expansion inside the United States — was engaged in wrongdoing starting in 2009.
[...]
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/355749-fbi-uncovered-russian-bribery-plot-before-obama-administration#bottom-story-socials It sounds like someone spent a lot of money burying that information to make sure congress did not catch wind of it. I wonder who made the decision at the justice department to keep investigating for 4 more years?
The impression I get from the wording is that keeping the investigation open prevents a need for a conclusion or for it to become declassified or something. Don't need to say anything until you're done or something.
|
On October 18 2017 00:39 Plansix wrote:
Every time I wonder how we got played so hard by Russia, I just need to come back to this thread and see the tribalism in action.
If you want to see tribalism, start by looking in a mirror. Any "influence" Russia may have had was magnified a hundred fold by the millions ready to just parrot feel-good "17 intelligence agencies say Russia was responsible for everything" while ignoring the fact that pretty much no one ever denied that - they just cared far more about issues closer to home. And didn't care for putting their head in the sand and crying Russia, wondering why no one pays attention anymore.
|
On October 18 2017 01:13 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2017 00:39 Plansix wrote:
Every time I wonder how we got played so hard by Russia, I just need to come back to this thread and see the tribalism in action. If you want to see tribalism, start by looking in a mirror. Any "influence" Russia may have had was magnified a hundred fold by the millions ready to just parrot feel-good "17 intelligence agencies say Russia was responsible for everything" while ignoring the fact that pretty much no one ever denied that - they just cared far more about issues closer to home. And didn't care for putting their head in the sand and crying Russia, wondering why no one pays attention anymore.
stoke that division buddy. that’s not transparent at all.
surely you know the russian campaign identified issues closer to home in order to get the desired results right? and we are fighting exactly these closer-to-home issues vehemently right here in this topic fueled by russian disinformation.
daily.
and to say nobody denied it is just a lie. many did. here. in this topic. and you’re still trying to downplay it right now, i’m betting if i dig hard enough i’ll find you denying it personally.
|
They never paid any attention in the first place.
Maga, build that wall, lock her up...
|
On October 18 2017 01:14 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2017 01:13 LegalLord wrote:On October 18 2017 00:39 Plansix wrote:
Every time I wonder how we got played so hard by Russia, I just need to come back to this thread and see the tribalism in action. If you want to see tribalism, start by looking in a mirror. Any "influence" Russia may have had was magnified a hundred fold by the millions ready to just parrot feel-good "17 intelligence agencies say Russia was responsible for everything" while ignoring the fact that pretty much no one ever denied that - they just cared far more about issues closer to home. And didn't care for putting their head in the sand and crying Russia, wondering why no one pays attention anymore. stoke that division buddy. that’s not transparent at all.
What can I say, it pays the bills.
On October 18 2017 01:14 brian wrote:
surely you know the russian campaign identified issues closer to home in order to get the desired results right?
Sounds like they did their homework. Good job Russia.
|
On October 18 2017 01:16 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2017 01:14 brian wrote:On October 18 2017 01:13 LegalLord wrote:On October 18 2017 00:39 Plansix wrote:
Every time I wonder how we got played so hard by Russia, I just need to come back to this thread and see the tribalism in action. If you want to see tribalism, start by looking in a mirror. Any "influence" Russia may have had was magnified a hundred fold by the millions ready to just parrot feel-good "17 intelligence agencies say Russia was responsible for everything" while ignoring the fact that pretty much no one ever denied that - they just cared far more about issues closer to home. And didn't care for putting their head in the sand and crying Russia, wondering why no one pays attention anymore. stoke that division buddy. that’s not transparent at all. What can I say, it pays the bills. Show nested quote +On October 18 2017 01:14 brian wrote:
surely you know the russian campaign identified issues closer to home in order to get the desired results right? Sounds like they did their homework. Good job Russia.
Admitting that you're trolling is one strategy, I guess.
|
On October 18 2017 01:13 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2017 00:39 Plansix wrote:
Every time I wonder how we got played so hard by Russia, I just need to come back to this thread and see the tribalism in action. If you want to see tribalism, start by looking in a mirror. Any "influence" Russia may have had was magnified a hundred fold by the millions ready to just parrot feel-good "17 intelligence agencies say Russia was responsible for everything" while ignoring the fact that pretty much no one ever denied that - they just cared far more about issues closer to home. And didn't care for putting their head in the sand and crying Russia, wondering why no one pays attention anymore.
Tell us again how the EU is bad, Brexit is good, Russia didn't invade Crimea and the reason the USSR failed is nations that separated never integrated appropriately?
Seriously, do you think you are fooling anyone anymore?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
