US Election 2020

[Tero]

I would not invest in Trump. He cut taxes, now dump him. He is bad for business. The country has gone global.

[L'Emmerdeur]

The intelligence reports say that 'several candidates benefited,' eh? Cite your source.

Here's one -- https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 348051002/ Refers to the indictment, which is based on the intelligence.

You snipped the part in which I stated I was referring to the presidential election. Whatever, add Sanders to the list. That makes three candidates. I suppose you can claim that three = 'several' but that would be bullshit, as was your original claim.

From what I've read, in regards to the presidential election the Russian influence campaign was focussed on helping Trump and denigrating Clinton, though there was also a minor sideline in boosting Jill Stein.

And Bernie Sanders. And, there were about 3500+ advertisments taken out by the Russians -- only 100 of those dealt with either support for Trump or opposition to Clinton.

A federal grand jury in February indicted 13 individuals accused of working for the Internet Research Agency to produce the ads. The charges related to meddling in the 2016 election, the only election interference case Mueller's office has filed so far.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/201 ... 602319002/

Ah the familiar Forty Two equivocation. It's something you regularly engage in when you wish to either minimize something or emphasize it, I guess because you think you can get away with that sort of rhetorical manipulation. The article you cited actually said that approximately 100 of the Russian ads 'overtly mentioned support for Donald Trump or opposition to Hillary Clinton.' The number that 'dealt with' support or opposition to the candidates is not given, and keeping in mind the fact that the troll farm was working to support Trump, it's rather likely that the number was much higher than 'about 100.'

The Russian government employed a sizable team to impersonate Americans and disseminate its false and divisive posts on major social media platforms. Your attempt to dismiss this by equating it to a few people engaging in discussion on a quiet online forum is absurdly disingenuous. It seems to me that for you it really does come down to 'they helped the candidate that I liked, so what's the big deal?'

It's not - go read the USA Today article which reviewed the 3500 social media ads that the Russians engaged in. Most voters didn't see them. They are almost in every case more of a "meme"than an ad, and they are quite obvious horse shit - bush league stuff.

Is it just poor research on your part, or are you purposely trying to minimize the work of the troll farm?

The activities of Russia’s shadowy “Internet Research Agency,” which pumped out divisive social media content in an attempt to drive Americans apart, continue to come to light. According to disclosures made to Congress, the troll farm’s posts reached 126 million Facebook users in the U.S. over the last couple of years.

The operation also put over 131,000 messages on Twitter and 1,100 videos on YouTube, according to the disclosures, reported Monday in The New York Times, ahead of congressional hearings this week on the matter of Russian interference in last year’s election.

Facebook previously told Congress about 3,000 ads that it said reached 10 million Americans, in an apparent campaign to divide people on issues ranging from race to gun rights. Now, it’s talking about around 80,000 pieces of content that initially reached 29 million people, some of whom then showed them to tens of millions more.

Facebook’s Instagram photo-sharing service also played host to around 120,000 of “Russia-linked content,” the Times reported the company as saying. Facebook (FB, +0.21%) apparently deleted over 170 Instagram accounts as a result.

[Emphasis mine. - L'E]
[source]

I don't think they helped anyone, in actual effect. They're stupid, and most didn't even mention Trump or Clinton.

Your opinion is noted, and given the weight it deserves.

And, it has nothing to do with which candidate I liked. I would feel the same way about them if they supported Clinton. Who cares? And, besides, what are we going to do about it? Facebook can't place ads from people posting them? Facebook is supposed to know who is "linked" to the Russian government? All it takes is one guy to set up "People for the Future, Inc." and buy an ad. What the hell is supposed to be done about that?

Given how partisan your posts have been on this site (anti-Clinton, pro-Trump) I have trouble believing you'd be so complacent about the known Russian involvement in the 2016 election if the situation were reversed. However, you've said so repeatedly, and I accept that you believe it.

Facebook and other social media platforms say they're working to try to block this sort of thing from happening again, and I hope they succeed.

And, do we even want someone to do something about that? To me, no. Because I know what it means for the government to be able to silence publication, and I don't trust the State with that power, and I would keep as much of that power out of the hands of the State as possible. The rich and powerful will just use those laws to silence truthful revelation of embarrassing or even criminal facts.

As I said, I hope that the efforts of the social media platforms to prevent themselves from being used by adversaries of the democratic process like the Russian government are successful. So far there have been no laws proposed by the US government to try to achieve that end that I am aware of. I think you're ignoring the real-world efforts while you rant about hypothetical government censorship. I agree that governments' ability to stifle free speech should be nearly non-existent, but that's not really at issue here.

I resent your implication that the only reason I find the Mueller prosecution a problem, and the only reason I question the vague reports about "interference," is because I am pro-Trump. That's not in any way in line with my views expressed on this forum.

Resent away, Forty Two. My opinions regarding your political sympathies and positions are formed by your 'views expressed on this forum' just as your opinions on my political sympathies and positions are formed by my posts. I haven't said that I think that you have problems with an investigation of the Russian interference and the Trump campaign's possible involvement with it 'only' because you're a Trump supporter. On the other hand I certainly don't believe that your support for Trump has nothing to do with it.

[Forty Two]

The intelligence reports say that 'several candidates benefited,' eh? Cite your source.

Here's one -- https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 348051002/ Refers to the indictment, which is based on the intelligence.

You snipped the part in which I stated I was referring to the presidential election. Whatever, add Sanders to the list. That makes three candidates. I suppose you can claim that three = 'several' but that would be bullshit, as was your original claim.

Three is several - and the Russians did try to hack both parties' campaigns and supporters, said the 12/2017 Intelligence Report, and the "meddling" adverts and protest organizing was partly "anti-Trump" -- thereby benefiting other candidates. The intelligence report is far from suggesting that the Russians were solely supporting trump. They were trying to sow discord and disrupt the entire system.

Back in 2015 or 2016, the Russians had no idea Trump could win, either. Do you think they had some inside scoop that nobody in the else in the Spring of 2016 had? That Trump was a viable candidate? People were laughing out loud at Trump as a candidate?

Listen to the audience reaction --



The import of that is that at the time, the Russians were not after supporting a candidate, they were after general disruption of the process. That's why only 100 of the 3500+ advertisements they bought mentioned either Trump or Clinton.

[Joe]

Preview of coming attractions?

U.S. Cyber Command operation disrupted Internet access of Russian troll factory on day of 2018 midterms

The U.S. military blocked Internet access to an infamous Russian entity seeking to sow discord among Americans during the 2018 midterms, several U.S. officials said, a warning that the Kremlin’s operations against the United States are not cost-free.

The strike on the Internet Research Agency in St. Petersburg, a company underwritten by an oligarch close to President Vladi­mir Putin, was part of the first offensive cyber campaign against Russia designed to thwart attempts to interfere with a U.S. election, the officials said.

“They basically took the IRA offline,” according to one individual familiar with the matter who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss classified information. “They shut them down.”

The operation marked the first muscle-flexing by U.S. Cyber Command, with intelligence from the National Security Agency, under new authorities it was granted by President Trump and Congress last year to bolster offensive capabilities. The president approved of the general operation to prevent Russian interference in the midterms, officials said.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Three is several

Yes, you're right, according to some dictionaries. I guess I'm old-fashioned, and agree with the Oxford English Dictionary which states that it's 'an indefinite (but not large) number exceeding two or three.'

and the Russians did try to hack both parties' campaigns and supporters, said the 12/2017 Intelligence Report, and the "meddling" adverts and protest organizing was partly "anti-Trump" -- thereby benefiting other candidates.

I already pointed out that US intelligence stated that the Republicans were hacked successfully, though none of the information obtained was used in their influence campaign. The vast majority of their efforts were aimed at assisting Trump's campaign regardless of some random anti-Trump noise they may have generated, and I'm unaware of any 'protest organizing' they did except a minor pro-Trump rally.

The intelligence report is far from suggesting that the Russians were solely supporting trump. They were trying to sow discord and disrupt the entire system.

According to the report they may not have been 'solely supporting Trump,' but attacking Clinton in assistance of Trump's campaign was the focus of their efforts.

We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. ...

We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him.

Back in 2015 or 2016, the Russians had no idea Trump could win, either. Do you think they had some inside scoop that nobody in the else in the Spring of 2016 had? That Trump was a viable candidate? People were laughing out loud at Trump as a candidate?

The initial effort was to attack Clinton, for whom Putin has a marked animus. When it became clear that Trump was ascendant, the attacks on Clinton continued, and as the US intelligence agencies say above, the Russian government aspired to help Trump. There was a sideline in promoting Sanders (to hurt Clinton) and then Stein (to hurt Clinton and help Trump by drawing away potential Clinton voters).

You've expended time and energy to essentially defend Russia's interference in the US election, and this isn't the first time. While I'm far from agreeing with silly accusations that you're a Russian-backed troll, I do have to marvel at your pretzel logic and tenacity in regard to this topic, taking a stance that I would have thought a sensible American would never promote. You say 'who cares?' but it seems that you do.

[Forty Two]

I haven't defended their interference in the election. The only part I've "defended" is stuff that either (a) isn't interference, or (b) is stuff we really can't do anything about.

There are accusations I'm a Russian backed troll? LOL. First, everyone is sure that I'm a reincarnation of a previous forum member who posted here for 10+years or more, and now folks think I'm a "Russian Backed Troll."

Yes, yes. It's me that's not sensible. Got it.

You know, Russia has been interfering or attempting to interfere in US elections for 50 to 75 years. This is not new. To not at least acknowledge that some of this Russia hysteria over the last 3 years is ginned up politics, is just not to look at reality. A few years ago, the very notion that Russia was a geopolitical foe was laughed at - including by the usual suspects on this forum - remember when Romney said Russia was our geopolitical foe? He was panned and pilloried on late night tv, on CNN, MSNBC all the pundits - and yes on this forum -- the very idea -- such old timey stuff, that Romney - he was waaay back in the 1980s -- Russia a foe, come on!

And, now everyone is on the bandwagon - Russia is behind everything now. One can even speculate, without evidence, whether the President is owned by Putin - is he a "Russian asset" -- has he been "compromised" - do we need to oust him under the 25th Amendment -- we should warn all the "adults in the room" to oppose Trump from within based on their higher loyalty to this country -- Russia did it!

Yes, Russia tried to hack, I'm sure. It would be surpising if they didn't. I've never denied that. And, yes, they posted facebook ads - a few thousand - most of them half-retarded - most of them viewed very sparsely - and only 100 out of 3500 supporting Trump or opposing Clinton, according to USA today. The intelligence community says that no votes were changed - and no actually effect on the election occurred. All it is is propaganda from Russia (well, private Russians "linked" to Russian intelligence), and attempted hacking. It's the same shit, different year - only in the 2017 report, the intelligence agencies say the Russians amped it up a notch, so we gotta be careful.

So, Impeach Trump!!!!!!!! He's a Russian spy!!!! He's a Manchurian Candidate!!! They "have something on him!!!" He's a traitor! He's criminally colluding with the Russians in violation of campaign finance laws!

Oh. My. God. Don Trump Jr was excited at the possibility that someone might have dirt on hillary, and he agreed to meet with that person. The person ultimately did not have dirt on Hillary. Nothing was donated. Nothing was contributed. But, it's absolutely a federal crime because it absolutely is Donald Trump soliciting a "thing of value" for his campaign. But, the Hillary Camp getting dirt on Trump, that wouldn't be solicitation, because they later got the report and paid for it.

It's all so reasonable on the anti-Trump side, isn't it? So dispassionate and fact-oriented.

[Tero]

Did you get your monthly check from Koch brothers as well?

Capitalism solves everything!

[Scot Dutchy]

Eating from two walls? Moscow wont like it.

[L'Emmerdeur]

I haven't defended their interference in the election. The only part I've "defended" is stuff that either (a) isn't interference, or (b) is stuff we really can't do anything about.

There are accusations I'm a Russian backed troll? LOL. First, everyone is sure that I'm a reincarnation of a previous forum member who posted here for 10+years or more, and now folks think I'm a "Russian Backed Troll."

Yes, yes. It's me that's not sensible. Got it.

Let's focus here.

Your whole fanciful 'Mexico assists O'Rourke' scenario was a defense of Russian interference: 'how they are evil and immoral?' 'In fact, Mexico has done a service to America there ...' 'would the Mexicans possibly have committed a crime? What crime? Was something they did "immoral?"' The clear implication is that Russia's assistance to Trump was not 'evil and immoral,' and that in fact they did a 'service to America,' while being innocent of any crime. Your attempt to deny that you were defending Russian government interference in the US presidential election is contradicted by your own writing.

You know, Russia has been interfering or attempting to interfere in US elections for 50 to 75 years. This is not new. To not at least acknowledge that some of this Russia hysteria over the last 3 years is ginned up politics, is just not to look at reality. A few years ago, the very notion that Russia was a geopolitical foe was laughed at - including by the usual suspects on this forum - remember when Romney said Russia was our geopolitical foe? He was panned and pilloried on late night tv, on CNN, MSNBC all the pundits - and yes on this forum -- the very idea -- such old timey stuff, that Romney - he was waaay back in the 1980s -- Russia a foe, come on!

And, now everyone is on the bandwagon - Russia is behind everything now. One can even speculate, without evidence, whether the President is owned by Putin - is he a "Russian asset" -- has he been "compromised" - do we need to oust him under the 25th Amendment -- we should warn all the "adults in the room" to oppose Trump from within based on their higher loyalty to this country -- Russia did it!

Yes, Russia tried to hack, I'm sure. It would be surpising if they didn't. I've never denied that. And, yes, they posted facebook ads - a few thousand - most of them half-retarded - most of them viewed very sparsely - and only 100 out of 3500 supporting Trump or opposing Clinton, according to USA today.

I posted links to and quotes from the statement from Facebook in which the country learned that the troll farm posted 80,000 times and that their content was seen by 126 million Facebook users in the U.S. You may not want to believe that, but you certainly haven't produced anything that contradicts it.

The intelligence community says that no votes were changed - and no actually effect on the election occurred.

That is incorrect. If you believe otherwise, I ask you to cite any such statement from the US intelligence community.

All it is is propaganda from Russia (well, private Russians "linked" to Russian intelligence), and attempted hacking. It's the same shit, different year - only in the 2017 report, the intelligence agencies say the Russians amped it up a notch, so we gotta be careful.

So, Impeach Trump!!!!!!!! He's a Russian spy!!!! He's a Manchurian Candidate!!! They "have something on him!!!" He's a traitor! He's criminally colluding with the Russians in violation of campaign finance laws!

Oh. My. God. Don Trump Jr was excited at the possibility that someone might have dirt on hillary, and he agreed to meet with that person. The person ultimately did not have dirt on Hillary. Nothing was donated. Nothing was contributed. But, it's absolutely a federal crime because it absolutely is Donald Trump soliciting a "thing of value" for his campaign. But, the Hillary Camp getting dirt on Trump, that wouldn't be solicitation, because they later got the report and paid for it.

It's all so reasonable on the anti-Trump side, isn't it? So dispassionate and fact-oriented.

I understand that you feel compelled to attempt to cast doubt, and in fact it's not unreasonable to have questions regarding the accuracy of the findings of the US intelligence services. On the other hand, trying to obfuscate the nature of the troll farm 'Internet Research Agency' by calling them 'private Russians' with 'linked' in scare quotes is just twaddle, as is your use of the term 'attempted' in referring to the hacking.

If you believe that the troll farm operation was undertaken without the full knowledge and support of the Russian government, you're delusional. The US intelligence services didn't claim that the hacking was a mere 'attempt.' They stated that it occurred, and was successful. I don't know whether you invented the narrative in which there was some sort of failed 'attempt' or you picked it up from the right wing media bubble, but it's not going to fly.

[Cunt]

The conspiracy theory of russian collusion in the Trump campaign has to survive his election in 2020, or how will the Dems continue to 'resist'?

[Tero]

Trump is not there to win. He is there to rally. The crowds love him! Not Pocahontas. Only we won't run her.

[Forty Two]

I haven't defended their interference in the election. The only part I've "defended" is stuff that either (a) isn't interference, or (b) is stuff we really can't do anything about.

There are accusations I'm a Russian backed troll? LOL. First, everyone is sure that I'm a reincarnation of a previous forum member who posted here for 10+years or more, and now folks think I'm a "Russian Backed Troll."

Yes, yes. It's me that's not sensible. Got it.

Let's focus here.

Your whole fanciful 'Mexico assists O'Rourke' scenario was a defense of Russian interference: 'how they are evil and immoral?' 'In fact, Mexico has done a service to America there ...' 'would the Mexicans possibly have committed a crime? What crime? Was something they did "immoral?"' The clear implication is that Russia's assistance to Trump was not 'evil and immoral,' and that in fact they did a 'service to America,' while being innocent of any crime. Your attempt to deny that you were defending Russian government interference in the US presidential election is contradicted by your own writing.

If a foreign national reveals accurate, albeit damaging, information, then that is a good thing. That's what I was talking about. But you knew that.

[L'Emmerdeur]

If a foreign national reveals accurate, albeit damaging, information, then that is a good thing. That's what I was talking about. But you knew that.

I know that you said that, yes. I also know that you said considerably more, and to me that looks like a defense of Russian interference in the US election. It certainly isn't a condemnation of their actions; rather the contrary. In the bolded quotes above you are without doubt questioning the idea that there was something bad or harmful about Russia's actions. While nothing prevented you from answering your own questions, I think you've already done so in that and previous posts. Correct me if I'm wrong:

Q: 'How they are evil and immoral?'

A: They are neither evil nor immoral. [Russia] has done a service to America.

Q: 'Would the [Russians] possibly have committed a crime? What crime?'

A: They committed no crime.

While I wouldn't phrase it the way you did ('evil, criminal, immoral'), I believe that the actions of the Russian government were harmful to the free function of democracy in the United States. They laid their fat thumb on the scale, if you will.

It's been a while since I pointed this out, but I'll do it again: There is deep irony in this. The United States has been doing much worse than that to other countries for over a century, and in the 2016 presidential primaries and presidential election it got a minor dose of its own medicine. I think such an anti-democratic action is neither acceptable nor excusable, whether the US does it to other countries or Russia does it to the US.

[Hermit]

everyone is sure that I'm a reincarnation of a previous forum member who posted here for 10+years or more

Are we wrong about that? Do tell.

[Joe]

I haven't defended their interference in the election. The only part I've "defended" is stuff that either (a) isn't interference, or (b) is stuff we really can't do anything about.

There are accusations I'm a Russian backed troll? LOL. First, everyone is sure that I'm a reincarnation of a previous forum member who posted here for 10+years or more, and now folks think I'm a "Russian Backed Troll."

Yes, yes. It's me that's not sensible. Got it.

Let's focus here.

Your whole fanciful 'Mexico assists O'Rourke' scenario was a defense of Russian interference: 'how they are evil and immoral?' 'In fact, Mexico has done a service to America there ...' 'would the Mexicans possibly have committed a crime? What crime? Was something they did "immoral?"' The clear implication is that Russia's assistance to Trump was not 'evil and immoral,' and that in fact they did a 'service to America,' while being innocent of any crime. Your attempt to deny that you were defending Russian government interference in the US presidential election is contradicted by your own writing.

If a foreign national reveals accurate, albeit damaging, information, then that is a good thing. That's what I was talking about. But you knew that.

You've piqued my curiosity. Who says that's a good thing?