$4,700

[Dale Smith]

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????

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.

Hey, I am just asking Lesh to clarify her position is all......she asked a question but I need to make sure the parameters of the argument are securely in place to avoid any "wiggle room".

 

[iceberg]

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????

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.

Hey, I am just asking Lesh to clarify her position is all......she asked a question but I need to make sure the parameters of the argument are securely in place to avoid any "wiggle room".

sorry - i've got lesh on ignore so i don't see that drivel. it looked to me like you were attacking old lady and that got me wondering why.

apologies.

 

[OldLady]

right and wrong is decided on whether or not we like people, not whether or not it's truly right or wrong.
Laws are still laws. Facts are still facts. Whether someone has behaved rightly or wrongly isn't all that hard to figure out, ice.

then we're back to "what law was broken by trumps camp and by what action".

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.

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.

so - if no laws were broken, do you support the investigation?

if not, pretty much done. if so, on what basis?

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.
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.

and the attitude is that they would accept help from a foreign government - in this case russia.

the series of events that played out from that mail didn't evolve into anything illegal at all, much less actual information passed on. no russian gov official was involved in any of this other than their name mentioned but the "sure i'll take that" is enough to base multi-year long investigations over "just in case" something was there.

i can relate as i feel hillary (for example) has much more than "sure i'll take that" against her and she needs to be in jail. but proven? well no one has done it yet and lucy keeps pulling the football away.

to me, it's these very different viewpoints over similar topics the russians exploited against us to get us to hate each other. they skewed how we reference in as much as what info we reference as well. nothing illegal as far as i know and something *we* need to be aware of and put the emotions they're trying to stir away and focus on what we can prove, not what we feel.

Well, the Russians failed because I don't hate you. I don't understand how you can argue in one post that the investigation was unwarranted and in the next point out how the Russians have set us against each other in a destructive cycle of accusations and reprisals, becoming less and less based in reality.

I have faith that our Intelligence Agencies know what they are doing. Apparently you don't. I believe they have very good evidence that Russia did the hacking of the DNC and that they, through a middle man, supplied it to Wikileaks. There was a whole lot of "forgetting" about meetings with and doings with Russians by the members of the Trump campaign. Maybe it's coincidence or a tempest in a teapot, over and over again. There were many reasons for the investigation, not just the Trump Tower meeting. Let's not forget that there was no Special Investigation until Trump fired the Director of the FBI and told Russians the next day that he had cleared up "that problem."
There were lots of good reasons for the investigation and whatever they come up with will be interesting, I'm sure.

 

[iceberg]

then we're back to "what law was broken by trumps camp and by what action".

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.

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.

so - if no laws were broken, do you support the investigation?

if not, pretty much done. if so, on what basis?

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.
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.

and the attitude is that they would accept help from a foreign government - in this case russia.

the series of events that played out from that mail didn't evolve into anything illegal at all, much less actual information passed on. no russian gov official was involved in any of this other than their name mentioned but the "sure i'll take that" is enough to base multi-year long investigations over "just in case" something was there.

i can relate as i feel hillary (for example) has much more than "sure i'll take that" against her and she needs to be in jail. but proven? well no one has done it yet and lucy keeps pulling the football away.

to me, it's these very different viewpoints over similar topics the russians exploited against us to get us to hate each other. they skewed how we reference in as much as what info we reference as well. nothing illegal as far as i know and something *we* need to be aware of and put the emotions they're trying to stir away and focus on what we can prove, not what we feel.

Well, the Russians failed because I don't hate you. I don't understand how you can argue in one post that the investigation was unwarranted and in the next point out how the Russians have set us against each other in a destructive cycle of accusations and reprisals, becoming less and less based in reality.

I have faith that our Intelligence Agencies know what they are doing. Apparently you don't. I believe they have very good evidence that Russia did the hacking of the DNC and that they, through a middle man, supplied it to Wikileaks. There was a whole lot of "forgetting" about meetings with and doings with Russians by the members of the Trump campaign. Maybe it's coincidence or a tempest in a teapot, over and over again. There were many reasons for the investigation, not just the Trump Tower meeting. Let's not forget that there was no Special Investigation until Trump fired the Director of the FBI and told Russians the next day that he had cleared up "that problem."
There were lots of good reasons for the investigation and whatever they come up with will be interesting, I'm sure.

you see - i ask these questions so i don't make assumptions like you're doing to me here.

but like i said - if this is going to a bad place then i'll stop cause i know i can bulldog on things.

 

[OldLady]

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.

so - if no laws were broken, do you support the investigation?

if not, pretty much done. if so, on what basis?

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.
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.

and the attitude is that they would accept help from a foreign government - in this case russia.

the series of events that played out from that mail didn't evolve into anything illegal at all, much less actual information passed on. no russian gov official was involved in any of this other than their name mentioned but the "sure i'll take that" is enough to base multi-year long investigations over "just in case" something was there.

i can relate as i feel hillary (for example) has much more than "sure i'll take that" against her and she needs to be in jail. but proven? well no one has done it yet and lucy keeps pulling the football away.

to me, it's these very different viewpoints over similar topics the russians exploited against us to get us to hate each other. they skewed how we reference in as much as what info we reference as well. nothing illegal as far as i know and something *we* need to be aware of and put the emotions they're trying to stir away and focus on what we can prove, not what we feel.

Well, the Russians failed because I don't hate you. I don't understand how you can argue in one post that the investigation was unwarranted and in the next point out how the Russians have set us against each other in a destructive cycle of accusations and reprisals, becoming less and less based in reality.

I have faith that our Intelligence Agencies know what they are doing. Apparently you don't. I believe they have very good evidence that Russia did the hacking of the DNC and that they, through a middle man, supplied it to Wikileaks. There was a whole lot of "forgetting" about meetings with and doings with Russians by the members of the Trump campaign. Maybe it's coincidence or a tempest in a teapot, over and over again. There were many reasons for the investigation, not just the Trump Tower meeting. Let's not forget that there was no Special Investigation until Trump fired the Director of the FBI and told Russians the next day that he had cleared up "that problem."
There were lots of good reasons for the investigation and whatever they come up with will be interesting, I'm sure.

you see - i ask these questions so i don't make assumptions like you're doing to me here.

but like i said - if this is going to a bad place then i'll stop cause i know i can bulldog on things.

Okay. I don't see why you think it's going to a "bad place," but if it's making you uncomfortable, we'll call it a draw.

 

[iceberg]

so - if no laws were broken, do you support the investigation?

if not, pretty much done. if so, on what basis?

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.
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.

and the attitude is that they would accept help from a foreign government - in this case russia.

the series of events that played out from that mail didn't evolve into anything illegal at all, much less actual information passed on. no russian gov official was involved in any of this other than their name mentioned but the "sure i'll take that" is enough to base multi-year long investigations over "just in case" something was there.

i can relate as i feel hillary (for example) has much more than "sure i'll take that" against her and she needs to be in jail. but proven? well no one has done it yet and lucy keeps pulling the football away.

to me, it's these very different viewpoints over similar topics the russians exploited against us to get us to hate each other. they skewed how we reference in as much as what info we reference as well. nothing illegal as far as i know and something *we* need to be aware of and put the emotions they're trying to stir away and focus on what we can prove, not what we feel.

Well, the Russians failed because I don't hate you. I don't understand how you can argue in one post that the investigation was unwarranted and in the next point out how the Russians have set us against each other in a destructive cycle of accusations and reprisals, becoming less and less based in reality.

I have faith that our Intelligence Agencies know what they are doing. Apparently you don't. I believe they have very good evidence that Russia did the hacking of the DNC and that they, through a middle man, supplied it to Wikileaks. There was a whole lot of "forgetting" about meetings with and doings with Russians by the members of the Trump campaign. Maybe it's coincidence or a tempest in a teapot, over and over again. There were many reasons for the investigation, not just the Trump Tower meeting. Let's not forget that there was no Special Investigation until Trump fired the Director of the FBI and told Russians the next day that he had cleared up "that problem."
There were lots of good reasons for the investigation and whatever they come up with will be interesting, I'm sure.

you see - i ask these questions so i don't make assumptions like you're doing to me here.

but like i said - if this is going to a bad place then i'll stop cause i know i can bulldog on things.

Okay. I don't see why you think it's going to a "bad place," but if it's making you uncomfortable, we'll call it a draw.

cause you recently said the way i was responding was getting borderline harassment or something like that a few posts ago.

i do think what trump jr said was likely something normal for most politicians. esp since he is *not* one and may or may not have known it was illegal to get that info in such a manner. i've not seen or heard anything else to link them that wasn't going about it in an agenda manner.

i do feel the investigation is part pay back part plan to keep trump busy. what the investigation has found hasn't been related to russia at all but financial issues. if that is what we attack then obama's appointments when he was first elected had around 60% that should have been "investigated" because they were in fact delinquent on many tax issues for many years running.

i think people today are more focused on "revenge" than "justice" and have mixed the 2 to a single outcome.

if we're to take comments in e-mail to justify investigating someone, then why is the same focus not being placed on the DNC e-mails and all that it revealed that were, to me, much worse than "sure i'll take that bad info..." from trump jr.

rest assured i can keep the bulldog going and dig, but you don't like it when i do and since my goal isn't to piss you off i stopped doing that is all.

 

[OldLady]

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.
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.

and the attitude is that they would accept help from a foreign government - in this case russia.

the series of events that played out from that mail didn't evolve into anything illegal at all, much less actual information passed on. no russian gov official was involved in any of this other than their name mentioned but the "sure i'll take that" is enough to base multi-year long investigations over "just in case" something was there.

i can relate as i feel hillary (for example) has much more than "sure i'll take that" against her and she needs to be in jail. but proven? well no one has done it yet and lucy keeps pulling the football away.

to me, it's these very different viewpoints over similar topics the russians exploited against us to get us to hate each other. they skewed how we reference in as much as what info we reference as well. nothing illegal as far as i know and something *we* need to be aware of and put the emotions they're trying to stir away and focus on what we can prove, not what we feel.

Well, the Russians failed because I don't hate you. I don't understand how you can argue in one post that the investigation was unwarranted and in the next point out how the Russians have set us against each other in a destructive cycle of accusations and reprisals, becoming less and less based in reality.

I have faith that our Intelligence Agencies know what they are doing. Apparently you don't. I believe they have very good evidence that Russia did the hacking of the DNC and that they, through a middle man, supplied it to Wikileaks. There was a whole lot of "forgetting" about meetings with and doings with Russians by the members of the Trump campaign. Maybe it's coincidence or a tempest in a teapot, over and over again. There were many reasons for the investigation, not just the Trump Tower meeting. Let's not forget that there was no Special Investigation until Trump fired the Director of the FBI and told Russians the next day that he had cleared up "that problem."
There were lots of good reasons for the investigation and whatever they come up with will be interesting, I'm sure.

you see - i ask these questions so i don't make assumptions like you're doing to me here.

but like i said - if this is going to a bad place then i'll stop cause i know i can bulldog on things.

Okay. I don't see why you think it's going to a "bad place," but if it's making you uncomfortable, we'll call it a draw.

cause you recently said the way i was responding was getting borderline harassment or something like that a few posts ago.

i do think what trump jr said was likely something normal for most politicians. esp since he is *not* one and may or may not have known it was illegal to get that info in such a manner. i've not seen or heard anything else to link them that wasn't going about it in an agenda manner.

i do feel the investigation is part pay back part plan to keep trump busy. what the investigation has found hasn't been related to russia at all but financial issues. if that is what we attack then obama's appointments when he was first elected had around 60% that should have been "investigated" because they were in fact delinquent on many tax issues for many years running.

i think people today are more focused on "revenge" than "justice" and have mixed the 2 to a single outcome.

if we're to take comments in e-mail to justify investigating someone, then why is the same focus not being placed on the DNC e-mails and all that it revealed that were, to me, much worse than "sure i'll take that bad info..." from trump jr.

rest assured i can keep the bulldog going and dig, but you don't like it when i do and since my goal isn't to piss you off i stopped doing that is all.

And you quite cleverly got in the last word, too, but I will still be the "gentleman" here and not continue to debate it since you say you don't want to. Although you keep it up.

 

[iceberg]

and the attitude is that they would accept help from a foreign government - in this case russia.

the series of events that played out from that mail didn't evolve into anything illegal at all, much less actual information passed on. no russian gov official was involved in any of this other than their name mentioned but the "sure i'll take that" is enough to base multi-year long investigations over "just in case" something was there.

i can relate as i feel hillary (for example) has much more than "sure i'll take that" against her and she needs to be in jail. but proven? well no one has done it yet and lucy keeps pulling the football away.

to me, it's these very different viewpoints over similar topics the russians exploited against us to get us to hate each other. they skewed how we reference in as much as what info we reference as well. nothing illegal as far as i know and something *we* need to be aware of and put the emotions they're trying to stir away and focus on what we can prove, not what we feel.

Well, the Russians failed because I don't hate you. I don't understand how you can argue in one post that the investigation was unwarranted and in the next point out how the Russians have set us against each other in a destructive cycle of accusations and reprisals, becoming less and less based in reality.

I have faith that our Intelligence Agencies know what they are doing. Apparently you don't. I believe they have very good evidence that Russia did the hacking of the DNC and that they, through a middle man, supplied it to Wikileaks. There was a whole lot of "forgetting" about meetings with and doings with Russians by the members of the Trump campaign. Maybe it's coincidence or a tempest in a teapot, over and over again. There were many reasons for the investigation, not just the Trump Tower meeting. Let's not forget that there was no Special Investigation until Trump fired the Director of the FBI and told Russians the next day that he had cleared up "that problem."
There were lots of good reasons for the investigation and whatever they come up with will be interesting, I'm sure.

you see - i ask these questions so i don't make assumptions like you're doing to me here.

but like i said - if this is going to a bad place then i'll stop cause i know i can bulldog on things.

Okay. I don't see why you think it's going to a "bad place," but if it's making you uncomfortable, we'll call it a draw.

cause you recently said the way i was responding was getting borderline harassment or something like that a few posts ago.

i do think what trump jr said was likely something normal for most politicians. esp since he is *not* one and may or may not have known it was illegal to get that info in such a manner. i've not seen or heard anything else to link them that wasn't going about it in an agenda manner.

i do feel the investigation is part pay back part plan to keep trump busy. what the investigation has found hasn't been related to russia at all but financial issues. if that is what we attack then obama's appointments when he was first elected had around 60% that should have been "investigated" because they were in fact delinquent on many tax issues for many years running.

i think people today are more focused on "revenge" than "justice" and have mixed the 2 to a single outcome.

if we're to take comments in e-mail to justify investigating someone, then why is the same focus not being placed on the DNC e-mails and all that it revealed that were, to me, much worse than "sure i'll take that bad info..." from trump jr.

rest assured i can keep the bulldog going and dig, but you don't like it when i do and since my goal isn't to piss you off i stopped doing that is all.

And you quite cleverly got in the last word, too, but I will still be the "gentleman" here and not continue to debate it since you say you don't want to. Although you keep it up.

i never said i didn't want to debate it.

i said i didn't want to make you mad at me. again. as for having to get the last word in - sorry. i thought we were having a conversation and replying back and forth is traditionally part of that. for example, you said:

"Well, the Russians failed because I don't hate you. I don't understand how you can argue in one post that the investigation was unwarranted and in the next point out how the Russians have set us against each other in a destructive cycle of accusations and reprisals, becoming less and less based in reality."

and since you were misinterpreting what i said and why i feel the way i do, i explained. that's it. you keep making this a me vs. you while i'm trying to NOT make it that way.

and the russians trolled us to pit us against each other. yes. is that illegal? not as far as i know. should we investigate trump cause of it?

no. not on what little we have to actually link the 2. a music producers e-mail and a lawyers meeting and wa-la. years of investigations. i think that was a waste of time. we know how they did it and where they did it.

why is what anyone wants to make of it at this point.

 

[MisterBeale]

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’

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.

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’

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.

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.

Trump may end up being a cartoonish character when all is said and done if he wasn't recruited by the white hats......but that doesn't change the fact that Trump, unwittingly or not has validated those like us that have been saying for years that there is a shadow government and a "deep state" of unelected bureaucrats that do their dirty work with a compliant and subservient lamestream media working as their propaganda arm.

IMO?

These days, all of popular electoral politics is a cartoonish affair that has no real affect on actual implementation of policy. He has just revealed it's true character. Good on him.

 

[MisterBeale]

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’

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.

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’

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.

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.

To me, who won the election is beside the point.

It's like I told you before the election, your vote doesn't really matter anyway, so why do you care?

No matter who won, the wars would continue, and nothing would change anyway. So who cares?

 

[Dale Smith]

then we're back to "what law was broken by trumps camp and by what action".

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.

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.

so - if no laws were broken, do you support the investigation?

if not, pretty much done. if so, on what basis?

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.
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.

and the attitude is that they would accept help from a foreign government - in this case russia.

the series of events that played out from that mail didn't evolve into anything illegal at all, much less actual information passed on. no russian gov official was involved in any of this other than their name mentioned but the "sure i'll take that" is enough to base multi-year long investigations over "just in case" something was there.

i can relate as i feel hillary (for example) has much more than "sure i'll take that" against her and she needs to be in jail. but proven? well no one has done it yet and lucy keeps pulling the football away.

to me, it's these very different viewpoints over similar topics the russians exploited against us to get us to hate each other. they skewed how we reference in as much as what info we reference as well. nothing illegal as far as i know and something *we* need to be aware of and put the emotions they're trying to stir away and focus on what we can prove, not what we feel.

Well, the Russians failed because I don't hate you. I don't understand how you can argue in one post that the investigation was unwarranted and in the next point out how the Russians have set us against each other in a destructive cycle of accusations and reprisals, becoming less and less based in reality.

I have faith that our Intelligence Agencies know what they are doing. Apparently you don't. I believe they have very good evidence that Russia did the hacking of the DNC and that they, through a middle man, supplied it to Wikileaks. There was a whole lot of "forgetting" about meetings with and doings with Russians by the members of the Trump campaign. Maybe it's coincidence or a tempest in a teapot, over and over again. There were many reasons for the investigation, not just the Trump Tower meeting. Let's not forget that there was no Special Investigation until Trump fired the Director of the FBI and told Russians the next day that he had cleared up "that problem."
There were lots of good reasons for the investigation and whatever they come up with will be interesting, I'm sure.

I lost faith in all 17 three lettered, incorporated, alphabet agencies LONG before Trump ever entered the political arena.I am sure that most of the rank and file members believe in what they are doing but their duties are so compartmentalized that they really have no clue as to how they are serving their deep state gatekeepers and those that do have a clue? They will not risk losing their positions or risk their pensions in order to speak out about what they have had to lower themselves to do. I have simply heard too many testimonies of whistleblowers like Kevin Shipp, William Binney, Chip Tatum and Cody Snodgras that were thrown under the bus and cast aside when they became a potential liability. I personally met with former Brigadier General Benton Partin, an explosives expert with few peers when he refused to corroborate the lies of the OKC Murrah building bombing and how they attempted to use his position on appropriation committees to try and shut him down and shut him down when he spoke up and how they threatened to take away his pension by insinuating that he took "kickbacks" but he WILLINGLY gave full access to any and all banking transactions because he was honest above reproach...so when that didn't work, they went after his character.....so spare me your "Pollyanna" view of this swamp.

The intel agencies have the ability to view a fly taking a shit on a plant in the Australian outback. You REALLY believe that these deep state operatives would be totally clueless about the hacking of a server of one of their "bought and paid for" political parties? If you do, then you are totally naive and live in a wonderland of lies. I left "Kansas" years ago and if Trump has accomplished nothing else, he has validated the contentions of many like myself that there is indeed a shadow government whose deep state operatives of unelected henchmen have been calling the shots ever since JFK was murdered by them.

 

[Dale Smith]

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’

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.

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’

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.

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.

Trump may end up being a cartoonish character when all is said and done if he wasn't recruited by the white hats......but that doesn't change the fact that Trump, unwittingly or not has validated those like us that have been saying for years that there is a shadow government and a "deep state" of unelected bureaucrats that do their dirty work with a compliant and subservient lamestream media working as their propaganda arm.

IMO?

These days, all of popular electoral politics is a cartoonish affair that has no real affect on actual implementation of policy. He has just revealed it's true character. Good on him.

All I can say (and I know this is just hopefulness talking here) but if Trump wasn't recruited at the behest of the white hats that have been fighting the deep state and keeping the wolves at bay? Then we are 100 percent "fucked" with absolutely no hope at all. The banking oligarchs win, the financial house of cards will fold like a cheap tent and there will be enough suffering by the domesticated billions that will GLADLY accept the RFID chip and those that are not compliant? Well, they will be targeted by drones that have facial recognition software and the sheeple won't voice any dissent when those against the "BEAST System" are removed from society.

 

[Votto]

Russia colluded with Trump to steal the election and spent 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’

Who cares what they found--the investigation isn't over.
The Russians are still dressing up as Americans and spreading their ill will on American boards, like this one. And you don't care, do you? What in hell is wrong with you people? You say Democrats are unAmerican for not wanting a Wall, yet the Republicans are just as bad, closing their eyes to any thought of foreign influence in our elections.
They are still here. You are their dupes.

Exactly! Who cares what they find so long as they continue to make Trump's life hell with the knowledge that no matter what is found he needs to be impeached anyway

Romney will lead the charge in the US Senate after taking Trump's endorsement to win his seat.

Lovely people those Swamp creatures.

Romney is an empty suit trying to position himself for another Presidential run when Trump implodes

No, Romney is an embittered Swamp creature that has finally begun to have something to fight against for the first time in his life.

As Trump aptly pointed out, if Romney had fought against Obama as hard as he has Trump, he would have been President.

 

[Lesh]

Russia colluded with Trump to steal the election and spent 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’

Who cares what they found--the investigation isn't over.
The Russians are still dressing up as Americans and spreading their ill will on American boards, like this one. And you don't care, do you? What in hell is wrong with you people? You say Democrats are unAmerican for not wanting a Wall, yet the Republicans are just as bad, closing their eyes to any thought of foreign influence in our elections.
They are still here. You are their dupes.

Exactly! Who cares what they find so long as they continue to make Trump's life hell with the knowledge that no matter what is found he needs to be impeached anyway

Romney will lead the charge in the US Senate after taking Trump's endorsement to win his seat.

Lovely people those Swamp creatures.

Romney is an empty suit trying to position himself for another Presidential run when Trump implodes

No, Romney is an embittered Swamp creature that has finally begun to have something to fight against for the first time in his life.

As Trump aptly pointed out, if Romney had fought against Obama as hard as he has Trump, he would have been President.

Romney got more votes than Trump did

 

[OldLady]

Well, the Russians failed because I don't hate you. I don't understand how you can argue in one post that the investigation was unwarranted and in the next point out how the Russians have set us against each other in a destructive cycle of accusations and reprisals, becoming less and less based in reality.

I have faith that our Intelligence Agencies know what they are doing. Apparently you don't. I believe they have very good evidence that Russia did the hacking of the DNC and that they, through a middle man, supplied it to Wikileaks. There was a whole lot of "forgetting" about meetings with and doings with Russians by the members of the Trump campaign. Maybe it's coincidence or a tempest in a teapot, over and over again. There were many reasons for the investigation, not just the Trump Tower meeting. Let's not forget that there was no Special Investigation until Trump fired the Director of the FBI and told Russians the next day that he had cleared up "that problem."
There were lots of good reasons for the investigation and whatever they come up with will be interesting, I'm sure.

you see - i ask these questions so i don't make assumptions like you're doing to me here.

but like i said - if this is going to a bad place then i'll stop cause i know i can bulldog on things.

Okay. I don't see why you think it's going to a "bad place," but if it's making you uncomfortable, we'll call it a draw.

cause you recently said the way i was responding was getting borderline harassment or something like that a few posts ago.

i do think what trump jr said was likely something normal for most politicians. esp since he is *not* one and may or may not have known it was illegal to get that info in such a manner. i've not seen or heard anything else to link them that wasn't going about it in an agenda manner.

i do feel the investigation is part pay back part plan to keep trump busy. what the investigation has found hasn't been related to russia at all but financial issues. if that is what we attack then obama's appointments when he was first elected had around 60% that should have been "investigated" because they were in fact delinquent on many tax issues for many years running.

i think people today are more focused on "revenge" than "justice" and have mixed the 2 to a single outcome.

if we're to take comments in e-mail to justify investigating someone, then why is the same focus not being placed on the DNC e-mails and all that it revealed that were, to me, much worse than "sure i'll take that bad info..." from trump jr.

rest assured i can keep the bulldog going and dig, but you don't like it when i do and since my goal isn't to piss you off i stopped doing that is all.

And you quite cleverly got in the last word, too, but I will still be the "gentleman" here and not continue to debate it since you say you don't want to. Although you keep it up.

i never said i didn't want to debate it.

i said i didn't want to make you mad at me. again. as for having to get the last word in - sorry. i thought we were having a conversation and replying back and forth is traditionally part of that. for example, you said:

"Well, the Russians failed because I don't hate you. I don't understand how you can argue in one post that the investigation was unwarranted and in the next point out how the Russians have set us against each other in a destructive cycle of accusations and reprisals, becoming less and less based in reality."

and since you were misinterpreting what i said and why i feel the way i do, i explained. that's it. you keep making this a me vs. you while i'm trying to NOT make it that way.

and the russians trolled us to pit us against each other. yes. is that illegal? not as far as i know. should we investigate trump cause of it?

no. not on what little we have to actually link the 2. a music producers e-mail and a lawyers meeting and wa-la. years of investigations. i think that was a waste of time. we know how they did it and where they did it.

why is what anyone wants to make of it at this point.

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’

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.

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’

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.

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.

To me, who won the election is beside the point.

It's like I told you before the election, your vote doesn't really matter anyway, so why do you care?

No matter who won, the wars would continue, and nothing would change anyway. So who cares?

Our votes don't matter? If Hillary were President, do you really think we would be withdrawing, bit by bit from the UN? Would we have pulled out of the Iran Nuclear Deal? Would we have refused to sign the Paris Climate Accords? Would we have cut immigration and refugees into this country at a time when there is such need for safe havens?

Votes do matter.

 

[iceberg]

you see - i ask these questions so i don't make assumptions like you're doing to me here.

but like i said - if this is going to a bad place then i'll stop cause i know i can bulldog on things.

Okay. I don't see why you think it's going to a "bad place," but if it's making you uncomfortable, we'll call it a draw.

cause you recently said the way i was responding was getting borderline harassment or something like that a few posts ago.

i do think what trump jr said was likely something normal for most politicians. esp since he is *not* one and may or may not have known it was illegal to get that info in such a manner. i've not seen or heard anything else to link them that wasn't going about it in an agenda manner.

i do feel the investigation is part pay back part plan to keep trump busy. what the investigation has found hasn't been related to russia at all but financial issues. if that is what we attack then obama's appointments when he was first elected had around 60% that should have been "investigated" because they were in fact delinquent on many tax issues for many years running.

i think people today are more focused on "revenge" than "justice" and have mixed the 2 to a single outcome.

if we're to take comments in e-mail to justify investigating someone, then why is the same focus not being placed on the DNC e-mails and all that it revealed that were, to me, much worse than "sure i'll take that bad info..." from trump jr.

rest assured i can keep the bulldog going and dig, but you don't like it when i do and since my goal isn't to piss you off i stopped doing that is all.

And you quite cleverly got in the last word, too, but I will still be the "gentleman" here and not continue to debate it since you say you don't want to. Although you keep it up.

i never said i didn't want to debate it.

i said i didn't want to make you mad at me. again. as for having to get the last word in - sorry. i thought we were having a conversation and replying back and forth is traditionally part of that. for example, you said:

"Well, the Russians failed because I don't hate you. I don't understand how you can argue in one post that the investigation was unwarranted and in the next point out how the Russians have set us against each other in a destructive cycle of accusations and reprisals, becoming less and less based in reality."

and since you were misinterpreting what i said and why i feel the way i do, i explained. that's it. you keep making this a me vs. you while i'm trying to NOT make it that way.

and the russians trolled us to pit us against each other. yes. is that illegal? not as far as i know. should we investigate trump cause of it?

no. not on what little we have to actually link the 2. a music producers e-mail and a lawyers meeting and wa-la. years of investigations. i think that was a waste of time. we know how they did it and where they did it.

why is what anyone wants to make of it at this 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.

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’

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.

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.

To me, who won the election is beside the point.

It's like I told you before the election, your vote doesn't really matter anyway, so why do you care?

No matter who won, the wars would continue, and nothing would change anyway. So who cares?

Our votes don't matter? If Hillary were President, do you really think we would be withdrawing, bit by bit from the UN? Would we have pulled out of the Iran Nuclear Deal? Would we have refused to sign the Paris Climate Accords? Would we have cut immigration and refugees into this country at a time when there is such need for safe havens?

Votes do matter.

and how has THAT trial against the trollers going again?

when has trolling been illegal also?

 

[iceberg]

you see - i ask these questions so i don't make assumptions like you're doing to me here.

but like i said - if this is going to a bad place then i'll stop cause i know i can bulldog on things.

Okay. I don't see why you think it's going to a "bad place," but if it's making you uncomfortable, we'll call it a draw.

cause you recently said the way i was responding was getting borderline harassment or something like that a few posts ago.

i do think what trump jr said was likely something normal for most politicians. esp since he is *not* one and may or may not have known it was illegal to get that info in such a manner. i've not seen or heard anything else to link them that wasn't going about it in an agenda manner.

i do feel the investigation is part pay back part plan to keep trump busy. what the investigation has found hasn't been related to russia at all but financial issues. if that is what we attack then obama's appointments when he was first elected had around 60% that should have been "investigated" because they were in fact delinquent on many tax issues for many years running.

i think people today are more focused on "revenge" than "justice" and have mixed the 2 to a single outcome.

if we're to take comments in e-mail to justify investigating someone, then why is the same focus not being placed on the DNC e-mails and all that it revealed that were, to me, much worse than "sure i'll take that bad info..." from trump jr.

rest assured i can keep the bulldog going and dig, but you don't like it when i do and since my goal isn't to piss you off i stopped doing that is all.

And you quite cleverly got in the last word, too, but I will still be the "gentleman" here and not continue to debate it since you say you don't want to. Although you keep it up.

i never said i didn't want to debate it.

i said i didn't want to make you mad at me. again. as for having to get the last word in - sorry. i thought we were having a conversation and replying back and forth is traditionally part of that. for example, you said:

"Well, the Russians failed because I don't hate you. I don't understand how you can argue in one post that the investigation was unwarranted and in the next point out how the Russians have set us against each other in a destructive cycle of accusations and reprisals, becoming less and less based in reality."

and since you were misinterpreting what i said and why i feel the way i do, i explained. that's it. you keep making this a me vs. you while i'm trying to NOT make it that way.

and the russians trolled us to pit us against each other. yes. is that illegal? not as far as i know. should we investigate trump cause of it?

no. not on what little we have to actually link the 2. a music producers e-mail and a lawyers meeting and wa-la. years of investigations. i think that was a waste of time. we know how they did it and where they did it.

why is what anyone wants to make of it at this 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.

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’

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.

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.

To me, who won the election is beside the point.

It's like I told you before the election, your vote doesn't really matter anyway, so why do you care?

No matter who won, the wars would continue, and nothing would change anyway. So who cares?

Our votes don't matter? If Hillary were President, do you really think we would be withdrawing, bit by bit from the UN? Would we have pulled out of the Iran Nuclear Deal? Would we have refused to sign the Paris Climate Accords? Would we have cut immigration and refugees into this country at a time when there is such need for safe havens?

Votes do matter.

i'm fine with pulling out of the UN. we've become the world police and i am not a fan of that at all.

i'm fine with pulling out of nuke deals with iran when they have shown they are NOT following through. just as i would be for n korea if they keep that shit up.

paris climate accord? that was a global money grab with zero accountability put into it.

safe havens? again - why are we the united way of the world? we've got many of our own local issues we need to focus on.

 

[Dale Smith]

you see - i ask these questions so i don't make assumptions like you're doing to me here.

but like i said - if this is going to a bad place then i'll stop cause i know i can bulldog on things.

Okay. I don't see why you think it's going to a "bad place," but if it's making you uncomfortable, we'll call it a draw.

cause you recently said the way i was responding was getting borderline harassment or something like that a few posts ago.

i do think what trump jr said was likely something normal for most politicians. esp since he is *not* one and may or may not have known it was illegal to get that info in such a manner. i've not seen or heard anything else to link them that wasn't going about it in an agenda manner.

i do feel the investigation is part pay back part plan to keep trump busy. what the investigation has found hasn't been related to russia at all but financial issues. if that is what we attack then obama's appointments when he was first elected had around 60% that should have been "investigated" because they were in fact delinquent on many tax issues for many years running.

i think people today are more focused on "revenge" than "justice" and have mixed the 2 to a single outcome.

if we're to take comments in e-mail to justify investigating someone, then why is the same focus not being placed on the DNC e-mails and all that it revealed that were, to me, much worse than "sure i'll take that bad info..." from trump jr.

rest assured i can keep the bulldog going and dig, but you don't like it when i do and since my goal isn't to piss you off i stopped doing that is all.

And you quite cleverly got in the last word, too, but I will still be the "gentleman" here and not continue to debate it since you say you don't want to. Although you keep it up.

i never said i didn't want to debate it.

i said i didn't want to make you mad at me. again. as for having to get the last word in - sorry. i thought we were having a conversation and replying back and forth is traditionally part of that. for example, you said:

"Well, the Russians failed because I don't hate you. I don't understand how you can argue in one post that the investigation was unwarranted and in the next point out how the Russians have set us against each other in a destructive cycle of accusations and reprisals, becoming less and less based in reality."

and since you were misinterpreting what i said and why i feel the way i do, i explained. that's it. you keep making this a me vs. you while i'm trying to NOT make it that way.

and the russians trolled us to pit us against each other. yes. is that illegal? not as far as i know. should we investigate trump cause of it?

no. not on what little we have to actually link the 2. a music producers e-mail and a lawyers meeting and wa-la. years of investigations. i think that was a waste of time. we know how they did it and where they did it.

why is what anyone wants to make of it at this 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.

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’

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.

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.

To me, who won the election is beside the point.

It's like I told you before the election, your vote doesn't really matter anyway, so why do you care?

No matter who won, the wars would continue, and nothing would change anyway. So who cares?

Our votes don't matter? If Hillary were President, do you really think we would be withdrawing, bit by bit from the UN? Would we have pulled out of the Iran Nuclear Deal? Would we have refused to sign the Paris Climate Accords? Would we have cut immigration and refugees into this country at a time when there is such need for safe havens?

Votes do matter.

You think the U.N is a "GOOD thing"??? The Paris Accord over a fake climate change deal where countries like China don't have to comply but every other country must PLUS be charged a carbon tax? You are fuckin' DENSE.........I.Q score of about 88 would be my very generous guesstimation.

 

[task0778]

you see - i ask these questions so i don't make assumptions like you're doing to me here.

but like i said - if this is going to a bad place then i'll stop cause i know i can bulldog on things.

Okay. I don't see why you think it's going to a "bad place," but if it's making you uncomfortable, we'll call it a draw.

cause you recently said the way i was responding was getting borderline harassment or something like that a few posts ago.

i do think what trump jr said was likely something normal for most politicians. esp since he is *not* one and may or may not have known it was illegal to get that info in such a manner. i've not seen or heard anything else to link them that wasn't going about it in an agenda manner.

i do feel the investigation is part pay back part plan to keep trump busy. what the investigation has found hasn't been related to russia at all but financial issues. if that is what we attack then obama's appointments when he was first elected had around 60% that should have been "investigated" because they were in fact delinquent on many tax issues for many years running.

i think people today are more focused on "revenge" than "justice" and have mixed the 2 to a single outcome.

if we're to take comments in e-mail to justify investigating someone, then why is the same focus not being placed on the DNC e-mails and all that it revealed that were, to me, much worse than "sure i'll take that bad info..." from trump jr.

rest assured i can keep the bulldog going and dig, but you don't like it when i do and since my goal isn't to piss you off i stopped doing that is all.

And you quite cleverly got in the last word, too, but I will still be the "gentleman" here and not continue to debate it since you say you don't want to. Although you keep it up.

i never said i didn't want to debate it.

i said i didn't want to make you mad at me. again. as for having to get the last word in - sorry. i thought we were having a conversation and replying back and forth is traditionally part of that. for example, you said:

"Well, the Russians failed because I don't hate you. I don't understand how you can argue in one post that the investigation was unwarranted and in the next point out how the Russians have set us against each other in a destructive cycle of accusations and reprisals, becoming less and less based in reality."

and since you were misinterpreting what i said and why i feel the way i do, i explained. that's it. you keep making this a me vs. you while i'm trying to NOT make it that way.

and the russians trolled us to pit us against each other. yes. is that illegal? not as far as i know. should we investigate trump cause of it?

no. not on what little we have to actually link the 2. a music producers e-mail and a lawyers meeting and wa-la. years of investigations. i think that was a waste of time. we know how they did it and where they did it.

why is what anyone wants to make of it at this 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.

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’

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.

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.

To me, who won the election is beside the point.

It's like I told you before the election, your vote doesn't really matter anyway, so why do you care?

No matter who won, the wars would continue, and nothing would change anyway. So who cares?

Our votes don't matter? If Hillary were President, do you really think we would be withdrawing, bit by bit from the UN? Would we have pulled out of the Iran Nuclear Deal? Would we have refused to sign the Paris Climate Accords? Would we have cut immigration and refugees into this country at a time when there is such need for safe havens?

Votes do matter.

We wouldn't have Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on the SCOTUS either, and the US economy would not have improved under Hillary, cuz as far as I know her economic policies wouldn't have changed from Obama's. A lot of things would not have been known about Hillary's private server, and the collusion investigation probably wouldn't have happened. Whether any or all of that plus everything else that would have been different means that we as a nation would be better or worse off is probably a determination for each of us to make individually, but yeah, that election was a very big deal. There were some swing states that went for Trump but not by a large margin (I think), so for sure votes matter.

 

[Care4all]

Okay. I don't see why you think it's going to a "bad place," but if it's making you uncomfortable, we'll call it a draw.

cause you recently said the way i was responding was getting borderline harassment or something like that a few posts ago.

i do think what trump jr said was likely something normal for most politicians. esp since he is *not* one and may or may not have known it was illegal to get that info in such a manner. i've not seen or heard anything else to link them that wasn't going about it in an agenda manner.

i do feel the investigation is part pay back part plan to keep trump busy. what the investigation has found hasn't been related to russia at all but financial issues. if that is what we attack then obama's appointments when he was first elected had around 60% that should have been "investigated" because they were in fact delinquent on many tax issues for many years running.

i think people today are more focused on "revenge" than "justice" and have mixed the 2 to a single outcome.

if we're to take comments in e-mail to justify investigating someone, then why is the same focus not being placed on the DNC e-mails and all that it revealed that were, to me, much worse than "sure i'll take that bad info..." from trump jr.

rest assured i can keep the bulldog going and dig, but you don't like it when i do and since my goal isn't to piss you off i stopped doing that is all.

And you quite cleverly got in the last word, too, but I will still be the "gentleman" here and not continue to debate it since you say you don't want to. Although you keep it up.

i never said i didn't want to debate it.

i said i didn't want to make you mad at me. again. as for having to get the last word in - sorry. i thought we were having a conversation and replying back and forth is traditionally part of that. for example, you said:

"Well, the Russians failed because I don't hate you. I don't understand how you can argue in one post that the investigation was unwarranted and in the next point out how the Russians have set us against each other in a destructive cycle of accusations and reprisals, becoming less and less based in reality."

and since you were misinterpreting what i said and why i feel the way i do, i explained. that's it. you keep making this a me vs. you while i'm trying to NOT make it that way.

and the russians trolled us to pit us against each other. yes. is that illegal? not as far as i know. should we investigate trump cause of it?

no. not on what little we have to actually link the 2. a music producers e-mail and a lawyers meeting and wa-la. years of investigations. i think that was a waste of time. we know how they did it and where they did it.

why is what anyone wants to make of it at this point.

Well done, my dear.

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.

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.

To me, who won the election is beside the point.

It's like I told you before the election, your vote doesn't really matter anyway, so why do you care?

No matter who won, the wars would continue, and nothing would change anyway. So who cares?

Our votes don't matter? If Hillary were President, do you really think we would be withdrawing, bit by bit from the UN? Would we have pulled out of the Iran Nuclear Deal? Would we have refused to sign the Paris Climate Accords? Would we have cut immigration and refugees into this country at a time when there is such need for safe havens?

Votes do matter.

i'm fine with pulling out of the UN. we've become the world police and i am not a fan of that at all.

i'm fine with pulling out of nuke deals with iran when they have shown they are NOT following through. just as i would be for n korea if they keep that shit up.

paris climate accord? that was a global money grab with zero accountability put into it.

safe havens? again - why are we the united way of the world? we've got many of our own local issues we need to focus on.

so you agree with Putin on every thing, and not our allies?

that's good to know....