Republicans Mock, "It's the Russians!!!" Well Yeah, Actually It Is.

[EverCurious]

Well lets think about who controls the MSM... in 2001 it was 7 corporations and only 3 of them were American (It's actually down to 5 US and 6 global now, but the Media won't produce this much detailed information anymore in order to protect their financial, political, and social agenda's - this information was last available in 2001) See who they "publish" as here: Media Giants | Merchants Of Cool | FRONTLINE | PBS

News Corp - Based in Australia, Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation Limited has diversified media holdings in the U.S., Canada, Europe, Australia, Latin America and Asia.
Bertelsmann - This privately-owned German media conglomerate is a global publishing giant with interests in roughly 600 companies and 53 countries.
Vivendi Universal -international merger
Sony Corporation - Japan based

See more current ownership lists here Who Owns the Media?
and here Concentration of media ownership - Wikipedia
and here Independent Lens . DEMOCRACY ON DEADLINE . Who Owns the Media?

Then cross reference the aforementioned companies that own them using the first link and internet searches you'll see why the MSM is just as guilty of this faux outrage of foreign influence. (And that's going off a presumption that the Russian's actually did influence the vote through fake stories - which I personally don't happen to buy.)

 

[CowboyTed]

All election cycle people have been pointing out how so many fake news stories have been coming out of the media... and many anti-Trump people have blamed it on the Russians only to be mocked by his supporters. Well it is time to reap what you sow, because independent reports are coming out to show just how gullible you were. It WAS the Russians, and all their fake news stories were to help Trump get elected. Not just opinions, they have traced the sites, the tweets, etc. to Russia.

Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say

Yeah, it was the Russians who put Clinton's server on her yard and Comey as a Russian spy uncovered it all.

What a load of baloney. You should have the conspiracy theorist of the board award.


Oh, and never forget that Clinton sold Russians the uranium.

"Clinton sold Russians the uranium."

This is the same fake news you keep spouting...

Did Clinton help Russia obtain uranium for donations? Nope

 

[Freewill]

[
It is sad when someone loses. Sad as they enter denial and make up reasons for losing. Really, really sad.

It's really sad that you're so desperate for the win, Trump could say he'd fuck you up the arse and you'd go "ok" as long as you won....

Me desperate for a win? Hillary lost, that is the win I was after, I am quite content.

 

[SavannahMann]

All election cycle people have been pointing out how so many fake news stories have been coming out of the media... and many anti-Trump people have blamed it on the Russians only to be mocked by his supporters. Well it is time to reap what you sow, because independent reports are coming out to show just how gullible you were. It WAS the Russians, and all their fake news stories were to help Trump get elected. Not just opinions, they have traced the sites, the tweets, etc. to Russia.

Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say

Sadly the so called fake news was in fact true. Hillary had a Private Server. So it was illegal but "everyone does it". Strangely that defense never works in court when you have a speeding ticket.

Hillary did go out and crow "we came, we saw, he died" which has led to a civil war lasting these last five years. So what if tens of thousands more have died so we could claim credit for something we didn't have any hand in.

So what fake news was there? Did the DNC manipulate the primary so Hillary would win? Sure. Was Hillary fed the questions at the debates? You bet. Did the campaign use the press to manipulate the story? Absolutely.

So the defense is that yes it was all true but we weren't supposed to know it. Because we learned the truth that was a bad thing.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[westwall]

All election cycle people have been pointing out how so many fake news stories have been coming out of the media... and many anti-Trump people have blamed it on the Russians only to be mocked by his supporters. Well it is time to reap what you sow, because independent reports are coming out to show just how gullible you were. It WAS the Russians, and all their fake news stories were to help Trump get elected. Not just opinions, they have traced the sites, the tweets, etc. to Russia.

Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say

That's funny as hell. There was more fake news and outright propaganda spread by our very own MSM than the russkis ever could have. Some "experts".

 

[bripat9643]

All election cycle people have been pointing out how so many fake news stories have been coming out of the media... and many anti-Trump people have blamed it on the Russians only to be mocked by his supporters. Well it is time to reap what you sow, because independent reports are coming out to show just how gullible you were. It WAS the Russians, and all their fake news stories were to help Trump get elected. Not just opinions, they have traced the sites, the tweets, etc. to Russia.

Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say

Clint Watts is on the staff of the Huffington Post. That's your "independant researcher?" He's a leftwing propaganda minion.

 

[Lewdog]

All election cycle people have been pointing out how so many fake news stories have been coming out of the media... and many anti-Trump people have blamed it on the Russians only to be mocked by his supporters. Well it is time to reap what you sow, because independent reports are coming out to show just how gullible you were. It WAS the Russians, and all their fake news stories were to help Trump get elected. Not just opinions, they have traced the sites, the tweets, etc. to Russia.

Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say

That's funny as hell. There was more fake news and outright propaganda spread by our very own MSM than the russkis ever could have. Some "experts".

If you read the article, it says that so many of the fake stories were spread by Russian propaganda sites to another, that some of the MSM picked up the same stories as true... when they were false.

So, you're a mod, how many Trump bots from Russia signed up to troll this board ans share fake news stories during the election cycle?

 

[Lewdog]

All election cycle people have been pointing out how so many fake news stories have been coming out of the media... and many anti-Trump people have blamed it on the Russians only to be mocked by his supporters. Well it is time to reap what you sow, because independent reports are coming out to show just how gullible you were. It WAS the Russians, and all their fake news stories were to help Trump get elected. Not just opinions, they have traced the sites, the tweets, etc. to Russia.

Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say

Clint Watts is on the staff of the Huffington Post. That's your "independant researcher?" He's a leftwing propaganda minion.

I know I'm wasting my time saying this... but read the article and notice that the primary source for the article was from this foundation:

Foreign Policy Research Institute - Wikipedia

Which is a Global foundation founded back in 1923.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It appears that you didn't read the article, since the War on the Rocks piece is from November 6th and gives no evidence that Russia is doing any such thing. Like all claims that Russia hacked the DNC, the Clinton campaign's emails, or the election it rests on anonymous evidence-free claims from "experts" and "officials." Unfortunately, that doesn't constitute evidence.

No if you read the article you would have easily seen that the main report the article is even written about is from the group, Foreign Policy Research Institute, and PropOrNot is a secondary source. You would have also read:

The researchers used Internet analytics tools to trace the origins of particular tweets and mapped the connections among social-media accounts that consistently delivered synchronized messages. Identifying website codes sometimes revealed common ownership. In other cases, exact phrases or sentences were echoed by sites and social-media accounts in rapid succession, signaling membership in connected networks controlled by a single entity.

And you would have read this part about how this type of activity had already been studied by others:

The findings about the mechanics of Russian propaganda operations largely track previous research by the Rand Corp. and George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs.

So, either you DIDN'T read the article...or you are just ignoring the facts in it.

No, it's clear that the War on the Rocks report and the PropOrNot list are treated as equal in the WaPo story, neither being primary or secondary. But again, the War on the Rocks piece is old, being prior to the election, and rests on evidence-free assertions from nameless "experts." And the War on the Rocks piece did not go so far as to give a list of Russian-backed websites like PropOrNot did.

And when I say I want their methodology on exactly how they came to the conclusion that these websites were in the employ of a foreign government saying that they used "internet analytics tools" just begs the question. What tools? What was the common code? What's the evidence that the common code has anything to do with Russia? When "exact phrases" are being used by different organizations or people how are they differentiating between a story going viral spontaneously and people working with the Russian government? What's the criteria to determine whether the speed at which a story spreads is spontaneous or whether it's coordinated? Who are these people? What are their qualifications? What are their biases?

Then write them an email. Ask them. I guess you ignored the point where their research came to the same conclusions as Rand Corp and George Washington university?

You also notice these places are trying to be fairly anonymous for fear of being the target of Russian hacks as revenge?

The point is that by purposefully remaining anonymous these people could be anybody and their motivations could be anything. Nobody with a brain takes evidence-free assertions from anonymous people seriously. As for fear of retribution, I'm pretty sure if Russia wanted to hack these frauds they wouldn't exactly need to know their names. Maybe they'd just use "internet analytics" to do it.

Furthermore, nobody's questioning that multiple organizations have determined that Russians have hacked the U.S. That's clearly been the case for months. The point is that this "huge" story does nothing to shed more light on the subject by providing new evidence, merely repeating the same evidence-free assertions from anonymous nobodies that we've been hearing for months. There are two problems with this story: 1) It offers no evidence to back up any claims being made, but is instead being promoted as if it is evidence in and of itself; and, 2) PropOrNot's list, the problems with which I have already pointed out.

Why are you so fascinated with PropOrNot and you ignore the other organizations? This isn't a murder trial where proof has to be beyond a shadow of a doubt. You picking one organization out of the 4 and harping on how you don't think they have any credibility isn't going to change the findings of the other three. You do realize that the posters on Twitter that are talking crap about this organization could be the same human bots that have been spreading propaganda for Trump?

As I've already said, the others are simply parroting the same nonsense without evidence. PropOrNot is creating an entirely new bit of nonsense with its list. So yes, I'm focusing much more on them because the others have been discredited all along by presenting zero evidence to back up their claims. PropOrNot is going a step further taking those evidence-free claims and then creating a list of enemies. At least Joseph McCarthy was willing to put his name when he created his list of spies.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Hilarious reading the usual suspects calling legitimate news sources like the Washington Post who's articles are all vetted before publishing like any other legitimate source "fake news."

The conservatives on this forum are literally the dumbest fucking people I've ever encountered in my life. No wonder we're so fucked as a country.

These same people suffer from so much confirmation bias that the only requirement for them believing in any article is whether it aligns with their own hate and internal beliefs. Fact checking is not necessary for these mental midgets. This is becoming a very disturbing personality flaw in American conservatives.

Yeah, remember when the Washington Post reported about Saddam Hussein's ties to al-Qaeda, and how he had weapons of mass destruction that prompted an unnecessary war? Remember when they speculated Putin might have poisoned Hillary when she collapsed in September? Remember when their own editorial board denounced their newsroom's source that led to their winning a Pulitzer? Good thing they vet everything there.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

All election cycle people have been pointing out how so many fake news stories have been coming out of the media... and many anti-Trump people have blamed it on the Russians only to be mocked by his supporters. Well it is time to reap what you sow, because independent reports are coming out to show just how gullible you were. It WAS the Russians, and all their fake news stories were to help Trump get elected. Not just opinions, they have traced the sites, the tweets, etc. to Russia.

Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say

Clint Watts is on the staff of the Huffington Post. That's your "independant researcher?" He's a leftwing propaganda minion.

I know I'm wasting my time saying this... but read the article and notice that the primary source for the article was from this foundation:

Foreign Policy Research Institute - Wikipedia

Which is a Global foundation founded back in 1923.

As has already been pointed out, that is not the "primary" source, as PropOrNot is as relevant to the piece. Furthermore, nothing from the Foreign Policy Research Institute is cited. Somebody who is a fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute is cited, and the "work" of his that they cite was not put out by the FPRI, but rather War on the Rocks. So the Foreign Policy Research Insitute is not only not the primary source, but it is not a source at all.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Hilarious reading the usual suspects calling legitimate news sources like the Washington Post who's articles are all vetted before publishing like any other legitimate source "fake news."

The conservatives on this forum are literally the dumbest fucking people I've ever encountered in my life. No wonder we're so fucked as a country.

These same people suffer from so much confirmation bias that the only requirement for them believing in any article is whether it aligns with their own hate and internal beliefs. Fact checking is not necessary for these mental midgets. This is becoming a very disturbing personality flaw in American conservatives.

Hilarious reading the usual suspects calling legitimate news sources like the Washington Post who's articles are all vetted before publishing like any other legitimate source "fake news."

No kidding, that would be like accusing Dan Rather of reporting a fake story.

Congratulations! Your logical fallacy is anecdotal

Try again, mental midget.

You've forgotten Dan Rather's fake story?
What are you, 12?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No kidding, that would be like accusing Dan Rather of reporting a fake story.

Yeah, he makes a mistake and you loons run with it as the norm. Unlike Briefart, which actually does make up news....

Yeah, he makes a mistake

He said it was fake but accurate......

 

[Pop23]

BREAKING NEWS!

TRUMP WINS

Have a nice day

 

[Freewill]

All election cycle people have been pointing out how so many fake news stories have been coming out of the media... and many anti-Trump people have blamed it on the Russians only to be mocked by his supporters. Well it is time to reap what you sow, because independent reports are coming out to show just how gullible you were. It WAS the Russians, and all their fake news stories were to help Trump get elected. Not just opinions, they have traced the sites, the tweets, etc. to Russia.

Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say

Sadly the so called fake news was in fact true. Hillary had a Private Server. So it was illegal but "everyone does it". Strangely that defense never works in court when you have a speeding ticket.

Hillary did go out and crow "we came, we saw, he died" which has led to a civil war lasting these last five years. So what if tens of thousands more have died so we could claim credit for something we didn't have any hand in.

So what fake news was there? Did the DNC manipulate the primary so Hillary would win? Sure. Was Hillary fed the questions at the debates? You bet. Did the campaign use the press to manipulate the story? Absolutely.

So the defense is that yes it was all true but we weren't supposed to know it. Because we learned the truth that was a bad thing.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

The whole fake new BS is nothing more then the establishment trying to get folks not to believe anything other than what the establishment tells them. Hillary's mentor Alinsky would be very proud.

 

[westwall]

All election cycle people have been pointing out how so many fake news stories have been coming out of the media... and many anti-Trump people have blamed it on the Russians only to be mocked by his supporters. Well it is time to reap what you sow, because independent reports are coming out to show just how gullible you were. It WAS the Russians, and all their fake news stories were to help Trump get elected. Not just opinions, they have traced the sites, the tweets, etc. to Russia.

Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say

That's funny as hell. There was more fake news and outright propaganda spread by our very own MSM than the russkis ever could have. Some "experts".

If you read the article, it says that so many of the fake stories were spread by Russian propaganda sites to another, that some of the MSM picked up the same stories as true... when they were false.

So, you're a mod, how many Trump bots from Russia signed up to troll this board ans share fake news stories during the election cycle?

There were none that we could positively identify. On the other hand there were at least 7 DNC paid posters here.

 

[Lewdog]

All election cycle people have been pointing out how so many fake news stories have been coming out of the media... and many anti-Trump people have blamed it on the Russians only to be mocked by his supporters. Well it is time to reap what you sow, because independent reports are coming out to show just how gullible you were. It WAS the Russians, and all their fake news stories were to help Trump get elected. Not just opinions, they have traced the sites, the tweets, etc. to Russia.

Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say

That's funny as hell. There was more fake news and outright propaganda spread by our very own MSM than the russkis ever could have. Some "experts".

If you read the article, it says that so many of the fake stories were spread by Russian propaganda sites to another, that some of the MSM picked up the same stories as true... when they were false.

So, you're a mod, how many Trump bots from Russia signed up to troll this board ans share fake news stories during the election cycle?

There were none that we could positively identify. On the other hand there were at least 7 DNC paid posters here.

7 people you think were paid posters or 7 that admitted it? Many people call Lakhota one, but I've never seen her admit it.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

All election cycle people have been pointing out how so many fake news stories have been coming out of the media... and many anti-Trump people have blamed it on the Russians only to be mocked by his supporters. Well it is time to reap what you sow, because independent reports are coming out to show just how gullible you were. It WAS the Russians, and all their fake news stories were to help Trump get elected. Not just opinions, they have traced the sites, the tweets, etc. to Russia.

Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say

Sadly the so called fake news was in fact true. Hillary had a Private Server. So it was illegal but "everyone does it". Strangely that defense never works in court when you have a speeding ticket.

Hillary did go out and crow "we came, we saw, he died" which has led to a civil war lasting these last five years. So what if tens of thousands more have died so we could claim credit for something we didn't have any hand in.

So what fake news was there? Did the DNC manipulate the primary so Hillary would win? Sure. Was Hillary fed the questions at the debates? You bet. Did the campaign use the press to manipulate the story? Absolutely.

So the defense is that yes it was all true but we weren't supposed to know it. Because we learned the truth that was a bad thing.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

The whole fake new BS is nothing more then the establishment trying to get folks not to believe anything other than what the establishment tells them. Hillary's mentor Alinsky would be very proud.

Kind of like when Chris Cuomo said it was illegal for anybody but the hacks at CNN to read the leaked emails put out by WikiLeaks.

 

[rdean]

And the MSM tried to use their influence to elect Clinton - who was in turn funded heavily by various countries. So?

You are absolutely and totally wrong. I retired in July. I watched presidential coverage every day. Chris Mathews, Chuck Todd, Andrea Mitchell, Thomas Roberts, Katie Tur and others couldn't stop talking endlessly about Trump.

And when ever any of them mentioned Hillary Clinton, it was always, always with an "unlikeable", an "untrustworthy" a "secretive" or a "dishonest" or all four.

And I didn't meet a single Republican who knew Trump had a Nov 28th court case for Fraud and Racketeering which he paid off. Or that he is under investigation for Bribery or that the illegal Trump Foundation is under multiple investigation and they have already pleaded guilty to at least two of the charges.

MSNBS showed many Trump speeches from beginning to end and most times, showed at least half the speech. They played looooong infomercials on Trump Golf Course in Scotland and his Hotel in DC.

Trump has gotten nearly $3 billion in ‘free’ advertising

That was back in May. I saw another report where it actually ended up being over 4.5 billion. With that much media support, it's almost impossible to lose. I was writing months ago I though he might win.

 

[Pop23]

And the MSM tried to use their influence to elect Clinton - who was in turn funded heavily by various countries. So?

You are absolutely and totally wrong. I retired in July. I watched presidential coverage every day. Chris Mathews, Chuck Todd, Andrea Mitchell, Thomas Roberts, Katie Tur and others couldn't stop talking endlessly about Trump.

And when ever any of them mentioned Hillary Clinton, it was always, always with an "unlikeable", an "untrustworthy" a "secretive" or a "dishonest" or all four.

And I didn't meet a single Republican who knew Trump had a Nov 28th court case for Fraud and Racketeering which he paid off. Or that he is under investigation for Bribery or that the illegal Trump Foundation is under multiple investigation and they have already pleaded guilty to at least two of the charges.

MSNBS showed many Trump speeches from beginning to end and most times, showed at least half the speech. They played looooong infomercials on Trump Golf Course in Scotland and his Hotel in DC.

Trump has gotten nearly $3 billion in ‘free’ advertising

That was back in May. I saw another report where it actually ended up being over 4.5 billion. With that much media support, it's almost impossible to lose. I was writing months ago I though he might win.

Are you saying the MSM was not caught giving Clinton debate questions?

You retired at 12?

Amazing.