Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
she posted how she felt about it and i need to back up/off and let it go. i can't / won't push her to my views anymore than she could do that to me or you so it's pointless to simply make someone mad because they don't agree with you.well she isn't going to post anything you ask for. so you are at wits end.going to try and avoid putting words in her mouth - did that once already by misreading what she was quoting. i'm not in an "attack mode" but i do want to understand what laws were actually broken and if possible, apply that law evenly to similar actions.the law that the GOP is not allowed to gather dirt on a democrat law. It's there in black and white. ask her again.i've already said "oops" on attributing his post to you. what i've not seen is what law was broken by what action. since this is what you posted in 216, i'll say again -Post 216 according to my count.$4,700
this is as close as i can get and you said YOU didn't say a thing about the foreign info but easy did. if you said elsewhere what law was broken by what action, please link me. i don't see it.
You would have to ask him. I thought it was an interpretation of the campaign rule that they can't accept anything of value from a foreign government to assist their campaign. That has been interpreted to include information of value, not just campaign contributions of cash.
how does steele NOT fit this criteria? doing "opposition research" is a cop out to me because the intent of this "law" is still broken by the action.
You are bordering on badgering at this point. No matter how many times you ask, the answer remains the same, at least from me. Opposition research is NOT illegal and is done by both sides routinely. The campaign law that I cited is the one that was supposedly violated, in spirit if not in fact, when Don Jr. accepted the invitation to meet. That he (supposedly) did not get anything of value on Hillary from the meeting saves his sorry ass, since he didn't take possession of anything, but the intent was crystal clear. It may not be enough to arrest him--to me it doesn't matter. It shows the mindset of the campaign toward Russian involvement. They welcomed it and I'm sure they also welcomed all the rest of it and were well aware of it.i've already said "oops" on attributing his post to you. what i've not seen is what law was broken by what action. since this is what you posted in 216, i'll say again -Post 216 according to my count.I already responded. Look back through.what was "well done"?
we had brittish foreign influence and the left calls it research. we have a russian lawyer, let into the country BY THE LEFT, who offered to give trumps camp info on hillary and the right said SWEET but never got the info. yet this is some form of collusion and illegal.
yet although i've asked you AND 'lady well done" what laws were broke by what action and you both stop the conversation.
do you want the truth and standards to be held for us all in the same manner or do you want to go BAD TRUMP in any way possible cause those are (2) different goals with the 2nd hiding behind a pretense of the first that's never been proven with the law broken by the action taken.
i don't see it as too much to ask - which law was broken by which action - but that question does get the left mad at me a lot.
$4,700
this is as close as i can get and you said YOU didn't say a thing about the foreign info but easy did. if you said elsewhere what law was broken by what action, please link me. i don't see it.
You would have to ask him. I thought it was an interpretation of the campaign rule that they can't accept anything of value from a foreign government to assist their campaign. That has been interpreted to include information of value, not just campaign contributions of cash.
how does steele NOT fit this criteria? doing "opposition research" is a cop out to me because the intent of this "law" is still broken by the action.
I made what's troubling me very clear in my first post on this thread, and I got TEN funnies for it. That's a big part of what is troubling me. You folks are either morons or Russians.what is it then that troubles you? weren't there many ads from many different sources? were most of them accurate. probably not. So you're ok with ads that lie? I'm trying to figure out why you're so upset.To me, who won the election is beside the point.100% pure Russian PROPAGANDA..... HOW can you and other USMB right wing members not recognize this...? It's in-explainable HOW LITTLE you all know and truly ignorant you guys are on this topic??? BLOWS MY MIND!!! For very very little money in advertising, the Russians found a way through trolls and Bots to spread those ads to hundreds of millions of people...
Five Takeaways From New Reports on Russia’s Social Media Operations
All of the emphasis on Facebook has obscured the huge role of Instagram, as well as the Russian activity on many smaller platforms.
Most of the early media coverage of the Russian campaign focused on Facebook. The New Knowledge report argues that the Internet Research Agency’s presence on Instagram, which is owned by Facebook, has been underestimated and may have been as effective or even more effective than its Facebook effort. The report says there were 187 million engagements on Instagram — users “liking” or sharing the content created in Russia — compared with 76.5 million engagements on Facebook.
“Our assessment is that Instagram is likely to be a key battleground on an ongoing basis,” the report concludes.
Both reports note that there was hardly a social platform, however obscure, that the Internet Research Agency did not invade: Reddit, Google+, Vine, Gab, Meetup, Pinterest, Tumblr and more. The Russian trolls even created a podcast on SoundCloud.
Why are we still talking about this more than two years after the election?
Russia had used similar online influence tactics inside Russian borders and in neighboring countries, including Estonia, Georgia and Ukraine. But the campaign against the United States in 2016 was historic on several counts: It was the first major foreign influence campaign aimed at affecting a presidential election; it was the biggest influence operation ever to be aimed at Americans from another country; and it was the biggest attack ever — using virtual, not physical weapons — on the United States by its old Cold War adversary, albeit slimmed down from the Soviet Union to Russia alone. It will be studied for years.
It is impossible to measure what effect the Russian campaign — along with the hacking and leaking of Democratic emails — had on the outcome of the very close 2016 election. But some political scientists believe it may have won the presidency for Donald J. Trump — a remarkable conclusion, even if it cannot be proved or disproved.
Inevitably, some American political operatives are learning from Russia’s example, testing the tools of chicanery in their online operations. So the Internet Research Agency may have taught a new generation of tricksters how to swing an election in the cyberage.
Well done, my dear.So dumb.100% pure Russian PROPAGANDA..... HOW can you and other USMB right wing members not recognize this...? It's in-explainable HOW LITTLE you all know and truly ignorant you guys are on this topic??? BLOWS MY MIND!!! For very very little money in advertising, the Russians found a way through trolls and Bots to spread those ads to hundreds of millions of people...Russia colluded with Trump to steal the election by spending a whopping $4,700. LOL!
The gaslighting of some Americans is too easy.
‘4,700 on Google ads – that’s it? We never found evidence of Russian collusion’
View attachment 238085
‘4,700 on Google ads – that’s it? We never found evidence of Russian collusion’
Five Takeaways From New Reports on Russia’s Social Media Operations
All of the emphasis on Facebook has obscured the huge role of Instagram, as well as the Russian activity on many smaller platforms.
Most of the early media coverage of the Russian campaign focused on Facebook. The New Knowledge report argues that the Internet Research Agency’s presence on Instagram, which is owned by Facebook, has been underestimated and may have been as effective or even more effective than its Facebook effort. The report says there were 187 million engagements on Instagram — users “liking” or sharing the content created in Russia — compared with 76.5 million engagements on Facebook.
“Our assessment is that Instagram is likely to be a key battleground on an ongoing basis,” the report concludes.
Both reports note that there was hardly a social platform, however obscure, that the Internet Research Agency did not invade: Reddit, Google+, Vine, Gab, Meetup, Pinterest, Tumblr and more. The Russian trolls even created a podcast on SoundCloud.
Why are we still talking about this more than two years after the election?
Russia had used similar online influence tactics inside Russian borders and in neighboring countries, including Estonia, Georgia and Ukraine. But the campaign against the United States in 2016 was historic on several counts: It was the first major foreign influence campaign aimed at affecting a presidential election; it was the biggest influence operation ever to be aimed at Americans from another country; and it was the biggest attack ever — using virtual, not physical weapons — on the United States by its old Cold War adversary, albeit slimmed down from the Soviet Union to Russia alone. It will be studied for years.
It is impossible to measure what effect the Russian campaign — along with the hacking and leaking of Democratic emails — had on the outcome of the very close 2016 election. But some political scientists believe it may have won the presidency for Donald J. Trump — a remarkable conclusion, even if it cannot be proved or disproved.
Inevitably, some American political operatives are learning from Russia’s example, testing the tools of chicanery in their online operations. So the Internet Research Agency may have taught a new generation of tricksters how to swing an election in the cyberage.
Russia had no affect on the election.
Folks in our own intelligence agencies, and folks in the DNC that really knew what a danger HRC was, leaked damaging files to Wikileaks.
Americans found out the truth about who she is, and decided to take a chance on a buffoonish carnival entertainer with a spotty track record of success in business over a known corrupt politician that had proven documents on Wikileaks to back up that corruption.
All of the corporate press denials of that corruption, all of the investigations by the government of how that documentation ended up in the public domain is NOT going to change the public opinion of the fact that HRC is a slimy corrupt politician.
Folks know that truth, they will not be gas lighted into believing the emperor has clothes on at this point.
and it could be just as easily said that the democrats bought personal info and used it against someone.The Russians stole personal information and broadcast it. That's illegal. No different than Watergate except it was done in cyberworld. It was stealing, not "cheating."To me, who won the election is beside the point.100% pure Russian PROPAGANDA..... HOW can you and other USMB right wing members not recognize this...? It's in-explainable HOW LITTLE you all know and truly ignorant you guys are on this topic??? BLOWS MY MIND!!! For very very little money in advertising, the Russians found a way through trolls and Bots to spread those ads to hundreds of millions of people...
Five Takeaways From New Reports on Russia’s Social Media Operations
All of the emphasis on Facebook has obscured the huge role of Instagram, as well as the Russian activity on many smaller platforms.
Most of the early media coverage of the Russian campaign focused on Facebook. The New Knowledge report argues that the Internet Research Agency’s presence on Instagram, which is owned by Facebook, has been underestimated and may have been as effective or even more effective than its Facebook effort. The report says there were 187 million engagements on Instagram — users “liking” or sharing the content created in Russia — compared with 76.5 million engagements on Facebook.
“Our assessment is that Instagram is likely to be a key battleground on an ongoing basis,” the report concludes.
Both reports note that there was hardly a social platform, however obscure, that the Internet Research Agency did not invade: Reddit, Google+, Vine, Gab, Meetup, Pinterest, Tumblr and more. The Russian trolls even created a podcast on SoundCloud.
Why are we still talking about this more than two years after the election?
Russia had used similar online influence tactics inside Russian borders and in neighboring countries, including Estonia, Georgia and Ukraine. But the campaign against the United States in 2016 was historic on several counts: It was the first major foreign influence campaign aimed at affecting a presidential election; it was the biggest influence operation ever to be aimed at Americans from another country; and it was the biggest attack ever — using virtual, not physical weapons — on the United States by its old Cold War adversary, albeit slimmed down from the Soviet Union to Russia alone. It will be studied for years.
It is impossible to measure what effect the Russian campaign — along with the hacking and leaking of Democratic emails — had on the outcome of the very close 2016 election. But some political scientists believe it may have won the presidency for Donald J. Trump — a remarkable conclusion, even if it cannot be proved or disproved.
Inevitably, some American political operatives are learning from Russia’s example, testing the tools of chicanery in their online operations. So the Internet Research Agency may have taught a new generation of tricksters how to swing an election in the cyberage.
Well done, my dear.So dumb.100% pure Russian PROPAGANDA..... HOW can you and other USMB right wing members not recognize this...? It's in-explainable HOW LITTLE you all know and truly ignorant you guys are on this topic??? BLOWS MY MIND!!! For very very little money in advertising, the Russians found a way through trolls and Bots to spread those ads to hundreds of millions of people...Russia colluded with Trump to steal the election by spending a whopping $4,700. LOL!
The gaslighting of some Americans is too easy.
‘4,700 on Google ads – that’s it? We never found evidence of Russian collusion’
View attachment 238085
‘4,700 on Google ads – that’s it? We never found evidence of Russian collusion’
Five Takeaways From New Reports on Russia’s Social Media Operations
All of the emphasis on Facebook has obscured the huge role of Instagram, as well as the Russian activity on many smaller platforms.
Most of the early media coverage of the Russian campaign focused on Facebook. The New Knowledge report argues that the Internet Research Agency’s presence on Instagram, which is owned by Facebook, has been underestimated and may have been as effective or even more effective than its Facebook effort. The report says there were 187 million engagements on Instagram — users “liking” or sharing the content created in Russia — compared with 76.5 million engagements on Facebook.
“Our assessment is that Instagram is likely to be a key battleground on an ongoing basis,” the report concludes.
Both reports note that there was hardly a social platform, however obscure, that the Internet Research Agency did not invade: Reddit, Google+, Vine, Gab, Meetup, Pinterest, Tumblr and more. The Russian trolls even created a podcast on SoundCloud.
Why are we still talking about this more than two years after the election?
Russia had used similar online influence tactics inside Russian borders and in neighboring countries, including Estonia, Georgia and Ukraine. But the campaign against the United States in 2016 was historic on several counts: It was the first major foreign influence campaign aimed at affecting a presidential election; it was the biggest influence operation ever to be aimed at Americans from another country; and it was the biggest attack ever — using virtual, not physical weapons — on the United States by its old Cold War adversary, albeit slimmed down from the Soviet Union to Russia alone. It will be studied for years.
It is impossible to measure what effect the Russian campaign — along with the hacking and leaking of Democratic emails — had on the outcome of the very close 2016 election. But some political scientists believe it may have won the presidency for Donald J. Trump — a remarkable conclusion, even if it cannot be proved or disproved.
Inevitably, some American political operatives are learning from Russia’s example, testing the tools of chicanery in their online operations. So the Internet Research Agency may have taught a new generation of tricksters how to swing an election in the cyberage.
Russia had no affect on the election.
Folks in our own intelligence agencies, and folks in the DNC that really knew what a danger HRC was, leaked damaging files to Wikileaks.
Americans found out the truth about who she is, and decided to take a chance on a buffoonish carnival entertainer with a spotty track record of success in business over a known corrupt politician that had proven documents on Wikileaks to back up that corruption.
All of the corporate press denials of that corruption, all of the investigations by the government of how that documentation ended up in the public domain is NOT going to change the public opinion of the fact that HRC is a slimy corrupt politician.
Folks know that truth, they will not be gas lighted into believing the emperor has clothes on at this point.
So? What is the point? That you believe that Trump and the Rooskies "cheated" by exposing the cheating of the DNC....and that's unfair and cheating?????
none of which you can prove. I will reread your initial post and be back.I made what's troubling me very clear in my first post on this thread, and I got TEN funnies for it. That's a big part of what is troubling me. You folks are either morons or Russians.what is it then that troubles you? weren't there many ads from many different sources? were most of them accurate. probably not. So you're ok with ads that lie? I'm trying to figure out why you're so upset.To me, who won the election is beside the point.100% pure Russian PROPAGANDA..... HOW can you and other USMB right wing members not recognize this...? It's in-explainable HOW LITTLE you all know and truly ignorant you guys are on this topic??? BLOWS MY MIND!!! For very very little money in advertising, the Russians found a way through trolls and Bots to spread those ads to hundreds of millions of people...
Five Takeaways From New Reports on Russia’s Social Media Operations
All of the emphasis on Facebook has obscured the huge role of Instagram, as well as the Russian activity on many smaller platforms.
Most of the early media coverage of the Russian campaign focused on Facebook. The New Knowledge report argues that the Internet Research Agency’s presence on Instagram, which is owned by Facebook, has been underestimated and may have been as effective or even more effective than its Facebook effort. The report says there were 187 million engagements on Instagram — users “liking” or sharing the content created in Russia — compared with 76.5 million engagements on Facebook.
“Our assessment is that Instagram is likely to be a key battleground on an ongoing basis,” the report concludes.
Both reports note that there was hardly a social platform, however obscure, that the Internet Research Agency did not invade: Reddit, Google+, Vine, Gab, Meetup, Pinterest, Tumblr and more. The Russian trolls even created a podcast on SoundCloud.
Why are we still talking about this more than two years after the election?
Russia had used similar online influence tactics inside Russian borders and in neighboring countries, including Estonia, Georgia and Ukraine. But the campaign against the United States in 2016 was historic on several counts: It was the first major foreign influence campaign aimed at affecting a presidential election; it was the biggest influence operation ever to be aimed at Americans from another country; and it was the biggest attack ever — using virtual, not physical weapons — on the United States by its old Cold War adversary, albeit slimmed down from the Soviet Union to Russia alone. It will be studied for years.
It is impossible to measure what effect the Russian campaign — along with the hacking and leaking of Democratic emails — had on the outcome of the very close 2016 election. But some political scientists believe it may have won the presidency for Donald J. Trump — a remarkable conclusion, even if it cannot be proved or disproved.
Inevitably, some American political operatives are learning from Russia’s example, testing the tools of chicanery in their online operations. So the Internet Research Agency may have taught a new generation of tricksters how to swing an election in the cyberage.
Well done, my dear.So dumb.100% pure Russian PROPAGANDA..... HOW can you and other USMB right wing members not recognize this...? It's in-explainable HOW LITTLE you all know and truly ignorant you guys are on this topic??? BLOWS MY MIND!!! For very very little money in advertising, the Russians found a way through trolls and Bots to spread those ads to hundreds of millions of people...Russia colluded with Trump to steal the election by spending a whopping $4,700. LOL!
The gaslighting of some Americans is too easy.
‘4,700 on Google ads – that’s it? We never found evidence of Russian collusion’
View attachment 238085
‘4,700 on Google ads – that’s it? We never found evidence of Russian collusion’
Five Takeaways From New Reports on Russia’s Social Media Operations
All of the emphasis on Facebook has obscured the huge role of Instagram, as well as the Russian activity on many smaller platforms.
Most of the early media coverage of the Russian campaign focused on Facebook. The New Knowledge report argues that the Internet Research Agency’s presence on Instagram, which is owned by Facebook, has been underestimated and may have been as effective or even more effective than its Facebook effort. The report says there were 187 million engagements on Instagram — users “liking” or sharing the content created in Russia — compared with 76.5 million engagements on Facebook.
“Our assessment is that Instagram is likely to be a key battleground on an ongoing basis,” the report concludes.
Both reports note that there was hardly a social platform, however obscure, that the Internet Research Agency did not invade: Reddit, Google+, Vine, Gab, Meetup, Pinterest, Tumblr and more. The Russian trolls even created a podcast on SoundCloud.
Why are we still talking about this more than two years after the election?
Russia had used similar online influence tactics inside Russian borders and in neighboring countries, including Estonia, Georgia and Ukraine. But the campaign against the United States in 2016 was historic on several counts: It was the first major foreign influence campaign aimed at affecting a presidential election; it was the biggest influence operation ever to be aimed at Americans from another country; and it was the biggest attack ever — using virtual, not physical weapons — on the United States by its old Cold War adversary, albeit slimmed down from the Soviet Union to Russia alone. It will be studied for years.
It is impossible to measure what effect the Russian campaign — along with the hacking and leaking of Democratic emails — had on the outcome of the very close 2016 election. But some political scientists believe it may have won the presidency for Donald J. Trump — a remarkable conclusion, even if it cannot be proved or disproved.
Inevitably, some American political operatives are learning from Russia’s example, testing the tools of chicanery in their online operations. So the Internet Research Agency may have taught a new generation of tricksters how to swing an election in the cyberage.
Russia had no affect on the election.
Folks in our own intelligence agencies, and folks in the DNC that really knew what a danger HRC was, leaked damaging files to Wikileaks.
Americans found out the truth about who she is, and decided to take a chance on a buffoonish carnival entertainer with a spotty track record of success in business over a known corrupt politician that had proven documents on Wikileaks to back up that corruption.
All of the corporate press denials of that corruption, all of the investigations by the government of how that documentation ended up in the public domain is NOT going to change the public opinion of the fact that HRC is a slimy corrupt politician.
Folks know that truth, they will not be gas lighted into believing the emperor has clothes on at this point.
Steele was not "the British government." That is the faulty premise of your whole whatabout argument. You must know that. There is no emotion involved in it, although it doesn't surprise me that you now turn to that argument, as you usually do to discredit whatever I'm saying.again - not my intent but we simply disagree and i'm trying to pinpoint where/why. i know it can get annoying but i'm trying to find the the facts that emotions are based on so we *can* find that common ground. *NOT* trying to piss you off.You are bordering on badgering at this point. No matter how many times you ask, the answer remains the same, at least from me. Opposition research is NOT illegal and is done by both sides routinely. The campaign law that I cited is the one that was supposedly violated, in spirit if not in fact, when Don Jr. accepted the invitation to meet. That he (supposedly) did not get anything of value on Hillary from the meeting saves his sorry ass, since he didn't take possession of anything, but the intent was crystal clear. It may not be enough to arrest him--to me it doesn't matter. It shows the mindset of the campaign toward Russian involvement. They welcomed it and I'm sure they also welcomed all the rest of it and were well aware of it.i've already said "oops" on attributing his post to you. what i've not seen is what law was broken by what action. since this is what you posted in 216, i'll say again -Post 216 according to my count.I already responded. Look back through.
$4,700
this is as close as i can get and you said YOU didn't say a thing about the foreign info but easy did. if you said elsewhere what law was broken by what action, please link me. i don't see it.
You would have to ask him. I thought it was an interpretation of the campaign rule that they can't accept anything of value from a foreign government to assist their campaign. That has been interpreted to include information of value, not just campaign contributions of cash.
how does steele NOT fit this criteria? doing "opposition research" is a cop out to me because the intent of this "law" is still broken by the action.
if the law says no help or interference from a foreign gov then getting intel from a foreign gov would break said law. that you to go "saves his sorry ass" to me says this is emotional for you, not factual. the only thing this would show is he's willing to take info from *someone* who has it. russians? fine. germans? if they have it. brittish? sure.
it's a huge leap to say that because he was willing to accept dirt on someone he was working with the russians when at most we can say he was willing to take dirt on hillary.
just as hillary was paying someone to actually get dirt.
the fact you don't care she got it and he didn't, but he's guilty is telling enough. i'll stop the "badgering" and let it go cause we're simply not going to be able to find that common ground if you allow 1 side to do something the other can't cause they're a "sorry ass".
how can she prove what is troubling her? if she says what is troubling her that would be it, i would think. laughing, mocking or the like of what she says is bothering her isn't going to make her change her mind but usually people dig in when this happens. you do, i do, most all of us do.none of which you can prove. I will reread your initial post and be back.I made what's troubling me very clear in my first post on this thread, and I got TEN funnies for it. That's a big part of what is troubling me. You folks are either morons or Russians.what is it then that troubles you? weren't there many ads from many different sources? were most of them accurate. probably not. So you're ok with ads that lie? I'm trying to figure out why you're so upset.To me, who won the election is beside the point.
Well done, my dear.So dumb.100% pure Russian PROPAGANDA..... HOW can you and other USMB right wing members not recognize this...? It's in-explainable HOW LITTLE you all know and truly ignorant you guys are on this topic??? BLOWS MY MIND!!! For very very little money in advertising, the Russians found a way through trolls and Bots to spread those ads to hundreds of millions of people...
Five Takeaways From New Reports on Russia’s Social Media Operations
All of the emphasis on Facebook has obscured the huge role of Instagram, as well as the Russian activity on many smaller platforms.
Most of the early media coverage of the Russian campaign focused on Facebook. The New Knowledge report argues that the Internet Research Agency’s presence on Instagram, which is owned by Facebook, has been underestimated and may have been as effective or even more effective than its Facebook effort. The report says there were 187 million engagements on Instagram — users “liking” or sharing the content created in Russia — compared with 76.5 million engagements on Facebook.
“Our assessment is that Instagram is likely to be a key battleground on an ongoing basis,” the report concludes.
Both reports note that there was hardly a social platform, however obscure, that the Internet Research Agency did not invade: Reddit, Google+, Vine, Gab, Meetup, Pinterest, Tumblr and more. The Russian trolls even created a podcast on SoundCloud.
Why are we still talking about this more than two years after the election?
Russia had used similar online influence tactics inside Russian borders and in neighboring countries, including Estonia, Georgia and Ukraine. But the campaign against the United States in 2016 was historic on several counts: It was the first major foreign influence campaign aimed at affecting a presidential election; it was the biggest influence operation ever to be aimed at Americans from another country; and it was the biggest attack ever — using virtual, not physical weapons — on the United States by its old Cold War adversary, albeit slimmed down from the Soviet Union to Russia alone. It will be studied for years.
It is impossible to measure what effect the Russian campaign — along with the hacking and leaking of Democratic emails — had on the outcome of the very close 2016 election. But some political scientists believe it may have won the presidency for Donald J. Trump — a remarkable conclusion, even if it cannot be proved or disproved.
Inevitably, some American political operatives are learning from Russia’s example, testing the tools of chicanery in their online operations. So the Internet Research Agency may have taught a new generation of tricksters how to swing an election in the cyberage.
Russia had no affect on the election.
Folks in our own intelligence agencies, and folks in the DNC that really knew what a danger HRC was, leaked damaging files to Wikileaks.
Americans found out the truth about who she is, and decided to take a chance on a buffoonish carnival entertainer with a spotty track record of success in business over a known corrupt politician that had proven documents on Wikileaks to back up that corruption.
All of the corporate press denials of that corruption, all of the investigations by the government of how that documentation ended up in the public domain is NOT going to change the public opinion of the fact that HRC is a slimy corrupt politician.
Folks know that truth, they will not be gas lighted into believing the emperor has clothes on at this point.
as far as i know the lawyer they met with wasn't the russian government either.Steele was not "the British government." That is the faulty premise of your whole whatabout argument. You must know that. There is no emotion involved in it, although it doesn't surprise me that you now turn to that argument, as you usually do to discredit whatever I'm saying.again - not my intent but we simply disagree and i'm trying to pinpoint where/why. i know it can get annoying but i'm trying to find the the facts that emotions are based on so we *can* find that common ground. *NOT* trying to piss you off.You are bordering on badgering at this point. No matter how many times you ask, the answer remains the same, at least from me. Opposition research is NOT illegal and is done by both sides routinely. The campaign law that I cited is the one that was supposedly violated, in spirit if not in fact, when Don Jr. accepted the invitation to meet. That he (supposedly) did not get anything of value on Hillary from the meeting saves his sorry ass, since he didn't take possession of anything, but the intent was crystal clear. It may not be enough to arrest him--to me it doesn't matter. It shows the mindset of the campaign toward Russian involvement. They welcomed it and I'm sure they also welcomed all the rest of it and were well aware of it.i've already said "oops" on attributing his post to you. what i've not seen is what law was broken by what action. since this is what you posted in 216, i'll say again -Post 216 according to my count.$4,700
this is as close as i can get and you said YOU didn't say a thing about the foreign info but easy did. if you said elsewhere what law was broken by what action, please link me. i don't see it.
You would have to ask him. I thought it was an interpretation of the campaign rule that they can't accept anything of value from a foreign government to assist their campaign. That has been interpreted to include information of value, not just campaign contributions of cash.
how does steele NOT fit this criteria? doing "opposition research" is a cop out to me because the intent of this "law" is still broken by the action.
if the law says no help or interference from a foreign gov then getting intel from a foreign gov would break said law. that you to go "saves his sorry ass" to me says this is emotional for you, not factual. the only thing this would show is he's willing to take info from *someone* who has it. russians? fine. germans? if they have it. brittish? sure.
it's a huge leap to say that because he was willing to accept dirt on someone he was working with the russians when at most we can say he was willing to take dirt on hillary.
just as hillary was paying someone to actually get dirt.
the fact you don't care she got it and he didn't, but he's guilty is telling enough. i'll stop the "badgering" and let it go cause we're simply not going to be able to find that common ground if you allow 1 side to do something the other can't cause they're a "sorry ass".
right and wrong is decided on whether or not we like people, not whether or not it's truly right or wrong.and it could be just as easily said that the democrats bought personal info and used it against someone.The Russians stole personal information and broadcast it. That's illegal. No different than Watergate except it was done in cyberworld. It was stealing, not "cheating."To me, who won the election is beside the point.
Well done, my dear.So dumb.100% pure Russian PROPAGANDA..... HOW can you and other USMB right wing members not recognize this...? It's in-explainable HOW LITTLE you all know and truly ignorant you guys are on this topic??? BLOWS MY MIND!!! For very very little money in advertising, the Russians found a way through trolls and Bots to spread those ads to hundreds of millions of people...
Five Takeaways From New Reports on Russia’s Social Media Operations
All of the emphasis on Facebook has obscured the huge role of Instagram, as well as the Russian activity on many smaller platforms.
Most of the early media coverage of the Russian campaign focused on Facebook. The New Knowledge report argues that the Internet Research Agency’s presence on Instagram, which is owned by Facebook, has been underestimated and may have been as effective or even more effective than its Facebook effort. The report says there were 187 million engagements on Instagram — users “liking” or sharing the content created in Russia — compared with 76.5 million engagements on Facebook.
“Our assessment is that Instagram is likely to be a key battleground on an ongoing basis,” the report concludes.
Both reports note that there was hardly a social platform, however obscure, that the Internet Research Agency did not invade: Reddit, Google+, Vine, Gab, Meetup, Pinterest, Tumblr and more. The Russian trolls even created a podcast on SoundCloud.
Why are we still talking about this more than two years after the election?
Russia had used similar online influence tactics inside Russian borders and in neighboring countries, including Estonia, Georgia and Ukraine. But the campaign against the United States in 2016 was historic on several counts: It was the first major foreign influence campaign aimed at affecting a presidential election; it was the biggest influence operation ever to be aimed at Americans from another country; and it was the biggest attack ever — using virtual, not physical weapons — on the United States by its old Cold War adversary, albeit slimmed down from the Soviet Union to Russia alone. It will be studied for years.
It is impossible to measure what effect the Russian campaign — along with the hacking and leaking of Democratic emails — had on the outcome of the very close 2016 election. But some political scientists believe it may have won the presidency for Donald J. Trump — a remarkable conclusion, even if it cannot be proved or disproved.
Inevitably, some American political operatives are learning from Russia’s example, testing the tools of chicanery in their online operations. So the Internet Research Agency may have taught a new generation of tricksters how to swing an election in the cyberage.
Russia had no affect on the election.
Folks in our own intelligence agencies, and folks in the DNC that really knew what a danger HRC was, leaked damaging files to Wikileaks.
Americans found out the truth about who she is, and decided to take a chance on a buffoonish carnival entertainer with a spotty track record of success in business over a known corrupt politician that had proven documents on Wikileaks to back up that corruption.
All of the corporate press denials of that corruption, all of the investigations by the government of how that documentation ended up in the public domain is NOT going to change the public opinion of the fact that HRC is a slimy corrupt politician.
Folks know that truth, they will not be gas lighted into believing the emperor has clothes on at this point.
So? What is the point? That you believe that Trump and the Rooskies "cheated" by exposing the cheating of the DNC....and that's unfair and cheating?????
we've gotten to a point in our culture where right and wrong is decided on whether or not we like people, not whether or not it's truly right or wrong.
yes, i have a huge problem with that but that's another thread.
then we're back to "what law was broken by trumps camp and by what action".right and wrong is decided on whether or not we like people, not whether or not it's truly right or wrong.and it could be just as easily said that the democrats bought personal info and used it against someone.The Russians stole personal information and broadcast it. That's illegal. No different than Watergate except it was done in cyberworld. It was stealing, not "cheating."To me, who won the election is beside the point.So dumb.
Russia had no affect on the election.
Folks in our own intelligence agencies, and folks in the DNC that really knew what a danger HRC was, leaked damaging files to Wikileaks.
Americans found out the truth about who she is, and decided to take a chance on a buffoonish carnival entertainer with a spotty track record of success in business over a known corrupt politician that had proven documents on Wikileaks to back up that corruption.
All of the corporate press denials of that corruption, all of the investigations by the government of how that documentation ended up in the public domain is NOT going to change the public opinion of the fact that HRC is a slimy corrupt politician.
Folks know that truth, they will not be gas lighted into believing the emperor has clothes on at this point.
So? What is the point? That you believe that Trump and the Rooskies "cheated" by exposing the cheating of the DNC....and that's unfair and cheating?????
we've gotten to a point in our culture where right and wrong is decided on whether or not we like people, not whether or not it's truly right or wrong.
yes, i have a huge problem with that but that's another thread.
Laws are still laws. Facts are still facts. Whether someone has behaved rightly or wrongly isn't all that hard to figure out, ice.
I was referring to the email from Goldstone to Jr.as far as i know the lawyer they met with wasn't the russian government either.Steele was not "the British government." That is the faulty premise of your whole whatabout argument. You must know that. There is no emotion involved in it, although it doesn't surprise me that you now turn to that argument, as you usually do to discredit whatever I'm saying.again - not my intent but we simply disagree and i'm trying to pinpoint where/why. i know it can get annoying but i'm trying to find the the facts that emotions are based on so we *can* find that common ground. *NOT* trying to piss you off.You are bordering on badgering at this point. No matter how many times you ask, the answer remains the same, at least from me. Opposition research is NOT illegal and is done by both sides routinely. The campaign law that I cited is the one that was supposedly violated, in spirit if not in fact, when Don Jr. accepted the invitation to meet. That he (supposedly) did not get anything of value on Hillary from the meeting saves his sorry ass, since he didn't take possession of anything, but the intent was crystal clear. It may not be enough to arrest him--to me it doesn't matter. It shows the mindset of the campaign toward Russian involvement. They welcomed it and I'm sure they also welcomed all the rest of it and were well aware of it.i've already said "oops" on attributing his post to you. what i've not seen is what law was broken by what action. since this is what you posted in 216, i'll say again -Post 216 according to my count.
You would have to ask him. I thought it was an interpretation of the campaign rule that they can't accept anything of value from a foreign government to assist their campaign. That has been interpreted to include information of value, not just campaign contributions of cash.
how does steele NOT fit this criteria? doing "opposition research" is a cop out to me because the intent of this "law" is still broken by the action.
if the law says no help or interference from a foreign gov then getting intel from a foreign gov would break said law. that you to go "saves his sorry ass" to me says this is emotional for you, not factual. the only thing this would show is he's willing to take info from *someone* who has it. russians? fine. germans? if they have it. brittish? sure.
it's a huge leap to say that because he was willing to accept dirt on someone he was working with the russians when at most we can say he was willing to take dirt on hillary.
just as hillary was paying someone to actually get dirt.
the fact you don't care she got it and he didn't, but he's guilty is telling enough. i'll stop the "badgering" and let it go cause we're simply not going to be able to find that common ground if you allow 1 side to do something the other can't cause they're a "sorry ass".
AP report: Lawyer who met with Trump Jr. closely tied to Russian officials
and if you're missing it - i'm not discrediting you, i'm defending your viewpoints as well as trying to understand them.
if steele isn't a brittish agent then this lawyer isn't a russian agent. can we agree on that?
goldstone is a music publicist. the lawyer was at the meeting. no "russian official" at this point has been in communication with the trump camp that i can see.I was referring to the email from Goldstone to Jr.as far as i know the lawyer they met with wasn't the russian government either.Steele was not "the British government." That is the faulty premise of your whole whatabout argument. You must know that. There is no emotion involved in it, although it doesn't surprise me that you now turn to that argument, as you usually do to discredit whatever I'm saying.again - not my intent but we simply disagree and i'm trying to pinpoint where/why. i know it can get annoying but i'm trying to find the the facts that emotions are based on so we *can* find that common ground. *NOT* trying to piss you off.You are bordering on badgering at this point. No matter how many times you ask, the answer remains the same, at least from me. Opposition research is NOT illegal and is done by both sides routinely. The campaign law that I cited is the one that was supposedly violated, in spirit if not in fact, when Don Jr. accepted the invitation to meet. That he (supposedly) did not get anything of value on Hillary from the meeting saves his sorry ass, since he didn't take possession of anything, but the intent was crystal clear. It may not be enough to arrest him--to me it doesn't matter. It shows the mindset of the campaign toward Russian involvement. They welcomed it and I'm sure they also welcomed all the rest of it and were well aware of it.i've already said "oops" on attributing his post to you. what i've not seen is what law was broken by what action. since this is what you posted in 216, i'll say again -
how does steele NOT fit this criteria? doing "opposition research" is a cop out to me because the intent of this "law" is still broken by the action.
if the law says no help or interference from a foreign gov then getting intel from a foreign gov would break said law. that you to go "saves his sorry ass" to me says this is emotional for you, not factual. the only thing this would show is he's willing to take info from *someone* who has it. russians? fine. germans? if they have it. brittish? sure.
it's a huge leap to say that because he was willing to accept dirt on someone he was working with the russians when at most we can say he was willing to take dirt on hillary.
just as hillary was paying someone to actually get dirt.
the fact you don't care she got it and he didn't, but he's guilty is telling enough. i'll stop the "badgering" and let it go cause we're simply not going to be able to find that common ground if you allow 1 side to do something the other can't cause they're a "sorry ass".
AP report: Lawyer who met with Trump Jr. closely tied to Russian officials
and if you're missing it - i'm not discrediting you, i'm defending your viewpoints as well as trying to understand them.
if steele isn't a brittish agent then this lawyer isn't a russian agent. can we agree on that?
The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.
This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin.
And then Don's response:
Thanks Rob ...if it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer...
Since Dale hasn't enlightened us on the content of that meeting he claims was bugged by the FBI, we can only take Jr.'s word for it that nothing of value was shared.
I already said Trump Jr. didn't break any laws--remember "saved his sorry ass?" I am having trouble figuring out why you are so insistent that I think there were laws broken there.then we're back to "what law was broken by trumps camp and by what action".right and wrong is decided on whether or not we like people, not whether or not it's truly right or wrong.and it could be just as easily said that the democrats bought personal info and used it against someone.The Russians stole personal information and broadcast it. That's illegal. No different than Watergate except it was done in cyberworld. It was stealing, not "cheating."To me, who won the election is beside the point.
So? What is the point? That you believe that Trump and the Rooskies "cheated" by exposing the cheating of the DNC....and that's unfair and cheating?????
we've gotten to a point in our culture where right and wrong is decided on whether or not we like people, not whether or not it's truly right or wrong.
yes, i have a huge problem with that but that's another thread.
Laws are still laws. Facts are still facts. Whether someone has behaved rightly or wrongly isn't all that hard to figure out, ice.
if you're going to say they worked with a foreign agent then how was the russian lawyer an official russian agent? we'll leave steele out for now and just help me understand this part because if she isn't then no law was broken.
i am NOT defending trump. he's an ass. but i don't let my thoughts of him as a person change what i view to be right or wrong.
so - if no laws were broken, do you support the investigation?I already said Trump Jr. didn't break any laws--remember "saved his sorry ass?" I am having trouble figuring out why you are so insistent that I think there were laws broken there.then we're back to "what law was broken by trumps camp and by what action".right and wrong is decided on whether or not we like people, not whether or not it's truly right or wrong.and it could be just as easily said that the democrats bought personal info and used it against someone.The Russians stole personal information and broadcast it. That's illegal. No different than Watergate except it was done in cyberworld. It was stealing, not "cheating."So? What is the point? That you believe that Trump and the Rooskies "cheated" by exposing the cheating of the DNC....and that's unfair and cheating?????
we've gotten to a point in our culture where right and wrong is decided on whether or not we like people, not whether or not it's truly right or wrong.
yes, i have a huge problem with that but that's another thread.
Laws are still laws. Facts are still facts. Whether someone has behaved rightly or wrongly isn't all that hard to figure out, ice.
if you're going to say they worked with a foreign agent then how was the russian lawyer an official russian agent? we'll leave steele out for now and just help me understand this part because if she isn't then no law was broken.
i am NOT defending trump. he's an ass. but i don't let my thoughts of him as a person change what i view to be right or wrong.
Oh, I believe the investigation into Russian intervention in our Presidential election and the possibility of Americans willingly involved in it is clearly called for.so - if no laws were broken, do you support the investigation?I already said Trump Jr. didn't break any laws--remember "saved his sorry ass?" I am having trouble figuring out why you are so insistent that I think there were laws broken there.then we're back to "what law was broken by trumps camp and by what action".right and wrong is decided on whether or not we like people, not whether or not it's truly right or wrong.and it could be just as easily said that the democrats bought personal info and used it against someone.The Russians stole personal information and broadcast it. That's illegal. No different than Watergate except it was done in cyberworld. It was stealing, not "cheating."
we've gotten to a point in our culture where right and wrong is decided on whether or not we like people, not whether or not it's truly right or wrong.
yes, i have a huge problem with that but that's another thread.
Laws are still laws. Facts are still facts. Whether someone has behaved rightly or wrongly isn't all that hard to figure out, ice.
if you're going to say they worked with a foreign agent then how was the russian lawyer an official russian agent? we'll leave steele out for now and just help me understand this part because if she isn't then no law was broken.
i am NOT defending trump. he's an ass. but i don't let my thoughts of him as a person change what i view to be right or wrong.
if not, pretty much done. if so, on what basis?
if the actions the russians took are the issue, are you equally as mad at the democrats for doing the same "routine" of actions in alabama against moore?
Hey dumbass...there is a significant difference between a minor effort by an American citizen and a broad spectrum attack by a foreign GOVERNMENT
So? What is the point? That you believe that Trump and the Rooskies "cheated" by exposing the cheating of the DNC....and that's unfair and cheating?????
What exact "cheating" was exposed again?? It sure "sounded" nefarious...but when you point out exactly what you're talking about....we'll see that the claim was a propaganda deception...
What? The DNC had a preference? That's not cheating
Some moron gave one debate question (that anyone with a brain knew was going to be included in the debate) to Clinton? Oh...
That Superdelegates made a difference? They were never a factor.
So....what?
and the attitude is that they would accept help from a foreign government - in this case russia.Oh, I believe the investigation into Russian intervention in our Presidential election and the possibility of Americans willingly involved in it is clearly called for.so - if no laws were broken, do you support the investigation?I already said Trump Jr. didn't break any laws--remember "saved his sorry ass?" I am having trouble figuring out why you are so insistent that I think there were laws broken there.then we're back to "what law was broken by trumps camp and by what action".right and wrong is decided on whether or not we like people, not whether or not it's truly right or wrong.and it could be just as easily said that the democrats bought personal info and used it against someone.
we've gotten to a point in our culture where right and wrong is decided on whether or not we like people, not whether or not it's truly right or wrong.
yes, i have a huge problem with that but that's another thread.
Laws are still laws. Facts are still facts. Whether someone has behaved rightly or wrongly isn't all that hard to figure out, ice.
if you're going to say they worked with a foreign agent then how was the russian lawyer an official russian agent? we'll leave steele out for now and just help me understand this part because if she isn't then no law was broken.
i am NOT defending trump. he's an ass. but i don't let my thoughts of him as a person change what i view to be right or wrong.
if not, pretty much done. if so, on what basis?
I felt Don's emails that I quoted above are the smoking gun of the campaign's attitude and it would not surprise me if some of them actually get caught doing something illegal. But it's a hard thing to prove, conspiracy. So I'm not really expecting that, either.
that's an entirely different topic, dale. if you're really wanting an intelligent answer, this isn't a good way to go about it.if the actions the russians took are the issue, are you equally as mad at the democrats for doing the same "routine" of actions in alabama against moore?
Hey dumbass...there is a significant difference between a minor effort by an American citizen and a broad spectrum attack by a foreign GOVERNMENT
So? What is the point? That you believe that Trump and the Rooskies "cheated" by exposing the cheating of the DNC....and that's unfair and cheating?????
What exact "cheating" was exposed again?? It sure "sounded" nefarious...but when you point out exactly what you're talking about....we'll see that the claim was a propaganda deception...
What? The DNC had a preference? That's not cheating
Some moron gave one debate question (that anyone with a brain knew was going to be included in the debate) to Clinton? Oh...
That Superdelegates made a difference? They were never a factor.
So....what?
Hold on a second...are you claiming that the Wikileaks data dump had nothing the DNC had to be ashamed of? Is that what you are claiming? And if so, why is the DNC blaming the ROOSKIES for hacking the DNC that they claim swung a sure win for the Hildebeast into defeat? I mean, isn't this whole Russian collusion built on the foundation that Trump and the ROOSKIES conspired to leak e-mails to Wikileaks and Julian Assange that were so damning that the Hildbeast wanted a drone strike done on the Ecuador embassy to shut him up?
We can get back to the contents of the data dump here in a few......but I want YOU to proclaim that there was nothing in those leaked e-mails that the DNC had to apologize for...AND if there was nothing in them that hurt the Hildebeast? What is all this "ROOSKIES interfered in our de---MOCK-racy" all about????
The Russians stole personal information and broadcast it. That's illegal. No different than Watergate except it was done in cyberworld. It was stealing, not "cheating."To me, who won the election is beside the point.100% pure Russian PROPAGANDA..... HOW can you and other USMB right wing members not recognize this...? It's in-explainable HOW LITTLE you all know and truly ignorant you guys are on this topic??? BLOWS MY MIND!!! For very very little money in advertising, the Russians found a way through trolls and Bots to spread those ads to hundreds of millions of people...
Five Takeaways From New Reports on Russia’s Social Media Operations
All of the emphasis on Facebook has obscured the huge role of Instagram, as well as the Russian activity on many smaller platforms.
Most of the early media coverage of the Russian campaign focused on Facebook. The New Knowledge report argues that the Internet Research Agency’s presence on Instagram, which is owned by Facebook, has been underestimated and may have been as effective or even more effective than its Facebook effort. The report says there were 187 million engagements on Instagram — users “liking” or sharing the content created in Russia — compared with 76.5 million engagements on Facebook.
“Our assessment is that Instagram is likely to be a key battleground on an ongoing basis,” the report concludes.
Both reports note that there was hardly a social platform, however obscure, that the Internet Research Agency did not invade: Reddit, Google+, Vine, Gab, Meetup, Pinterest, Tumblr and more. The Russian trolls even created a podcast on SoundCloud.
Why are we still talking about this more than two years after the election?
Russia had used similar online influence tactics inside Russian borders and in neighboring countries, including Estonia, Georgia and Ukraine. But the campaign against the United States in 2016 was historic on several counts: It was the first major foreign influence campaign aimed at affecting a presidential election; it was the biggest influence operation ever to be aimed at Americans from another country; and it was the biggest attack ever — using virtual, not physical weapons — on the United States by its old Cold War adversary, albeit slimmed down from the Soviet Union to Russia alone. It will be studied for years.
It is impossible to measure what effect the Russian campaign — along with the hacking and leaking of Democratic emails — had on the outcome of the very close 2016 election. But some political scientists believe it may have won the presidency for Donald J. Trump — a remarkable conclusion, even if it cannot be proved or disproved.
Inevitably, some American political operatives are learning from Russia’s example, testing the tools of chicanery in their online operations. So the Internet Research Agency may have taught a new generation of tricksters how to swing an election in the cyberage.
Well done, my dear.So dumb.100% pure Russian PROPAGANDA..... HOW can you and other USMB right wing members not recognize this...? It's in-explainable HOW LITTLE you all know and truly ignorant you guys are on this topic??? BLOWS MY MIND!!! For very very little money in advertising, the Russians found a way through trolls and Bots to spread those ads to hundreds of millions of people...Russia colluded with Trump to steal the election by spending a whopping $4,700. LOL!
The gaslighting of some Americans is too easy.
‘4,700 on Google ads – that’s it? We never found evidence of Russian collusion’
View attachment 238085
‘4,700 on Google ads – that’s it? We never found evidence of Russian collusion’
Five Takeaways From New Reports on Russia’s Social Media Operations
All of the emphasis on Facebook has obscured the huge role of Instagram, as well as the Russian activity on many smaller platforms.
Most of the early media coverage of the Russian campaign focused on Facebook. The New Knowledge report argues that the Internet Research Agency’s presence on Instagram, which is owned by Facebook, has been underestimated and may have been as effective or even more effective than its Facebook effort. The report says there were 187 million engagements on Instagram — users “liking” or sharing the content created in Russia — compared with 76.5 million engagements on Facebook.
“Our assessment is that Instagram is likely to be a key battleground on an ongoing basis,” the report concludes.
Both reports note that there was hardly a social platform, however obscure, that the Internet Research Agency did not invade: Reddit, Google+, Vine, Gab, Meetup, Pinterest, Tumblr and more. The Russian trolls even created a podcast on SoundCloud.
Why are we still talking about this more than two years after the election?
Russia had used similar online influence tactics inside Russian borders and in neighboring countries, including Estonia, Georgia and Ukraine. But the campaign against the United States in 2016 was historic on several counts: It was the first major foreign influence campaign aimed at affecting a presidential election; it was the biggest influence operation ever to be aimed at Americans from another country; and it was the biggest attack ever — using virtual, not physical weapons — on the United States by its old Cold War adversary, albeit slimmed down from the Soviet Union to Russia alone. It will be studied for years.
It is impossible to measure what effect the Russian campaign — along with the hacking and leaking of Democratic emails — had on the outcome of the very close 2016 election. But some political scientists believe it may have won the presidency for Donald J. Trump — a remarkable conclusion, even if it cannot be proved or disproved.
Inevitably, some American political operatives are learning from Russia’s example, testing the tools of chicanery in their online operations. So the Internet Research Agency may have taught a new generation of tricksters how to swing an election in the cyberage.
Russia had no affect on the election.
Folks in our own intelligence agencies, and folks in the DNC that really knew what a danger HRC was, leaked damaging files to Wikileaks.
Americans found out the truth about who she is, and decided to take a chance on a buffoonish carnival entertainer with a spotty track record of success in business over a known corrupt politician that had proven documents on Wikileaks to back up that corruption.
All of the corporate press denials of that corruption, all of the investigations by the government of how that documentation ended up in the public domain is NOT going to change the public opinion of the fact that HRC is a slimy corrupt politician.
Folks know that truth, they will not be gas lighted into believing the emperor has clothes on at this point.
So? What is the point? That you believe that Trump and the Rooskies "cheated" by exposing the cheating of the DNC....and that's unfair and cheating?????
can just as easily flip this and say why are you after hillary yet, not after trump jr, for illegal activities disclosed in e-mail?The Russians stole personal information and broadcast it. That's illegal. No different than Watergate except it was done in cyberworld. It was stealing, not "cheating."To me, who won the election is beside the point.
Well done, my dear.So dumb.100% pure Russian PROPAGANDA..... HOW can you and other USMB right wing members not recognize this...? It's in-explainable HOW LITTLE you all know and truly ignorant you guys are on this topic??? BLOWS MY MIND!!! For very very little money in advertising, the Russians found a way through trolls and Bots to spread those ads to hundreds of millions of people...
Five Takeaways From New Reports on Russia’s Social Media Operations
All of the emphasis on Facebook has obscured the huge role of Instagram, as well as the Russian activity on many smaller platforms.
Most of the early media coverage of the Russian campaign focused on Facebook. The New Knowledge report argues that the Internet Research Agency’s presence on Instagram, which is owned by Facebook, has been underestimated and may have been as effective or even more effective than its Facebook effort. The report says there were 187 million engagements on Instagram — users “liking” or sharing the content created in Russia — compared with 76.5 million engagements on Facebook.
“Our assessment is that Instagram is likely to be a key battleground on an ongoing basis,” the report concludes.
Both reports note that there was hardly a social platform, however obscure, that the Internet Research Agency did not invade: Reddit, Google+, Vine, Gab, Meetup, Pinterest, Tumblr and more. The Russian trolls even created a podcast on SoundCloud.
Why are we still talking about this more than two years after the election?
Russia had used similar online influence tactics inside Russian borders and in neighboring countries, including Estonia, Georgia and Ukraine. But the campaign against the United States in 2016 was historic on several counts: It was the first major foreign influence campaign aimed at affecting a presidential election; it was the biggest influence operation ever to be aimed at Americans from another country; and it was the biggest attack ever — using virtual, not physical weapons — on the United States by its old Cold War adversary, albeit slimmed down from the Soviet Union to Russia alone. It will be studied for years.
It is impossible to measure what effect the Russian campaign — along with the hacking and leaking of Democratic emails — had on the outcome of the very close 2016 election. But some political scientists believe it may have won the presidency for Donald J. Trump — a remarkable conclusion, even if it cannot be proved or disproved.
Inevitably, some American political operatives are learning from Russia’s example, testing the tools of chicanery in their online operations. So the Internet Research Agency may have taught a new generation of tricksters how to swing an election in the cyberage.
Russia had no affect on the election.
Folks in our own intelligence agencies, and folks in the DNC that really knew what a danger HRC was, leaked damaging files to Wikileaks.
Americans found out the truth about who she is, and decided to take a chance on a buffoonish carnival entertainer with a spotty track record of success in business over a known corrupt politician that had proven documents on Wikileaks to back up that corruption.
All of the corporate press denials of that corruption, all of the investigations by the government of how that documentation ended up in the public domain is NOT going to change the public opinion of the fact that HRC is a slimy corrupt politician.
Folks know that truth, they will not be gas lighted into believing the emperor has clothes on at this point.
So? What is the point? That you believe that Trump and the Rooskies "cheated" by exposing the cheating of the DNC....and that's unfair and cheating?????
What proof do you have? And what "stealing" is it that you believe the ROOSKIES got that hurt the Hildebeast so badly that she blamed her defeat on them and this alleged hacking of their server?
BTW, did you even READ some of the e-mails?????? The damning ones showing corruption, collusion with the lamestream media and usurping of the nomination process that Wasserman had to resign because of it?
BTW, don't you have a problem with the Hildbeast getting the debate questions ahead of time????
