Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
salttee
Topic Author
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

The scope of Russian interference in the 2016 election was larger than previously known

Tue Dec 18, 2018 1:02 am

A report on Russian meddling in the 2016 election which was made for the Senate has been released and it documents the fact that the scope of the Russian effort to get Donald Trump elected was larger than what had previously known.

The LA Times has a good writeup on the story although it is being carried by all the major news services (I don't know about Fox). https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na- ... story.html

Among the interesting finds is the fact that the Russians were promoting Green Party candidates in an effort to split the liberal votes. They seemed to be quite effective in this effort; the Green party vote in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin ended up being larger than the vote spread for Trump, so even without Bernie's help, the liberal vote had been already split enough for Trump to come out ahead: partially at least thanks to the Russian trolls.

They worked black issues intensely.

This strikes me as being the usual Russian/Soviet MO. They used to engage in similar divisive actions in Latin America throughout the cold war.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12690
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: The scope of Russian interference in the 2016 election was larger than previously known

Tue Dec 18, 2018 1:11 am

may I suggest moving it to viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1410747
 
BN747
Posts: 7934
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

Re: The scope of Russian interference in the 2016 election was larger than previously known

Tue Dec 18, 2018 1:21 am

Any amateur 'tech savvy' mind reached this conclusion as soon as the Russian Interference was mentioned publicly after the election. It was evident.

If fact, it's more than likely far more damaging than we'd like to admit.

TTrump could not have gone the Electoral College route were it not for Russian assistance.

It really is starting to appear as ifsome of these Russian trolls are residence here as well, recently joined members from nowhere - vociferously vocal about their love of TTRump in their first comments. That's not typical of non-AV participants, most come for Civil AV activity because...it's why we're here. They gawk in Non-Av literally for years before they open their mouths in Non-Av...that's normally how most Non-Av 'routine visitors come in the circle. These sudden new raging members soon die off after endless ass kickings with facts and they are unmasked as idiots. Not a fake idiot...but the real thing.

BN747
 
salttee
Topic Author
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: The scope of Russian interference in the 2016 election was larger than previously known

Tue Dec 18, 2018 1:40 am

BN747 wrote:
It really is starting to appear as if some of these Russian trolls are residence here as well, recently joined members from nowhere - vociferously vocal about their love of TTRump in their first comments.

It has become hard to tell the Russian bots from the actual American trump chumps. Back in 2014, in the first MH-17 thread there were a half a dozen Russians trying to pass themselves off as "concerned citizens" of the west; they were blatant and stood out so much that the moderators eventually got rid of them. But that was before they went to school and were taught how to be more effective in western forums. They are here for sure, they have been here for years.
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 14195
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

Re: The scope of Russian interference in the 2016 election was larger than previously known

Tue Dec 18, 2018 2:22 am

Yeah, it was bad and the Fox News viewers and other deplorables don't want hear and most are not above the line of even being to comprehend it.


I am convinced more everyday that we have Russian Bots on here, nobody could really be that naive, or dumb to defend these dumb greedy SOBs as we see on here everyday. Talk about sewing the seeds of division, these defenders of such do not have the good of the American People on their minds for sure. We are getting screwed and they defend such as only a Russian Operative would to divide us. No other way to explain it. :eek: :eek:
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 24076
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: The scope of Russian interference in the 2016 election was larger than previously known

Tue Dec 18, 2018 2:37 am

I wonder how long it will be before the same chorus of posters and a very notable orange tweeter will cry and scream this is fake.
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 14155
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: The scope of Russian interference in the 2016 election was larger than previously known

Tue Dec 18, 2018 3:10 am

seb146 wrote:
I wonder how long it will be before the same chorus of posters and a very notable orange tweeter will cry and scream this is fake.


You mean he hasn't already?



Seriously though, this is the main issue with the election. I think their was a lot of interference run in the 2016 election. I think the Russians exploited certain groups in an attempt to manipulate the outcome.

I also believe that Trump and his staff were committed to cutting ANY deal to gain ground in the Election, including collusion with a Foreign Government.

The damage being wreaked across our manufacturing, technology, and agricultural sectors will be hard to repair.
 
KICT
Posts: 815
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2017 11:54 pm

Re: The scope of Russian interference in the 2016 election was larger than previously known

Tue Dec 18, 2018 4:32 am

The west should seriously consider isolating Russia from the rest of the world as much as possible - blocking IP addresses, revoking travel authorities, suspending visas of Russian nationals, etc. In technology with the era of VPNs, etc. this will be difficult but I believe we are in a new "phase" of the Cold War - it never really ended it turns out. Russia - at least the gov't and it's operatives - are the enemy of the people and we should recognize this at all levels of our life.
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8928
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

Re: The scope of Russian interference in the 2016 election was larger than previously known

Tue Dec 18, 2018 4:48 am

Should we blame Russia or the people dumb enough to fall for trolling/fake information? Should we let our crap candidates off the hook if a tiny portion of the population goes third party because of fake spam accounts and memes?

Of course I don't condone Russia doing what they did. But I think the bigger problem is a large chunk of our voting population can be so massively ignorant to fall for some of the misinformation on the internet (Russian or non Russian).

Also, I think it's pretty convenient to blame Russia for the terrible candidate we had on the Democrat ticket. Maybe in absence of Russian meddling she would've won, but it never should have been that close in the first place. On the long list of reasons Hillary lost, Russian meddling is no where near the top.

Hopefully we don't make the same mistake in 2020. Doesn't look great for Trump now but it didn't in 2016 either. If the Democrats are good at one thing, it's snatching defeat from the jaws of victory
 
User avatar
johnboy
Posts: 3150
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 9:09 pm

Re: The scope of Russian interference in the 2016 election was larger than previously known

Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:20 am

I’m quite convinced AA hereis but it wouldn’t surprise me if the Littlest Delta were too — Russian trash all of them.

And none of them here right now.
 
User avatar
johnboy
Posts: 3150
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 9:09 pm

Re: The scope of Russian interference in the 2016 election was larger than previously known

Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:22 am

Dutchy wrote:
may I suggest moving it to viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1410747



I vociferously disagree. This needs to be a topic on all its own here (and my god, why is everyone so hung up upon folding one topic into another, — it’s like the smarmy teacher’s pet raising the hand and telling on someone!)
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 24076
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: The scope of Russian interference in the 2016 election was larger than previously known

Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:31 am

DeltaMD90 wrote:
Should we blame Russia or the people dumb enough to fall for trolling/fake information? Should we let our crap candidates off the hook if a tiny portion of the population goes third party because of fake spam accounts and memes?

Of course I don't condone Russia doing what they did. But I think the bigger problem is a large chunk of our voting population can be so massively ignorant to fall for some of the misinformation on the internet (Russian or non Russian).

Also, I think it's pretty convenient to blame Russia for the terrible candidate we had on the Democrat ticket. Maybe in absence of Russian meddling she would've won, but it never should have been that close in the first place. On the long list of reasons Hillary lost, Russian meddling is no where near the top.

Hopefully we don't make the same mistake in 2020. Doesn't look great for Trump now but it didn't in 2016 either. If the Democrats are good at one thing, it's snatching defeat from the jaws of victory


Why hold only one of those things accountable? Why not both? There were plenty of us telling the low information voters that Russia was up to no good. They both need to be held accountable.
 
BN747
Posts: 7934
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

Re: The scope of Russian interference in the 2016 election was larger than previously known

Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:53 am

DeltaMD90 wrote:
Should we blame Russia or the people dumb enough to fall for trolling/fake information? Should we let our crap candidates off the hook if a tiny portion of the population goes third party because of fake spam accounts and memes?

Of course I don't condone Russia doing what they did. But I think the bigger problem is a large chunk of our voting population can be so massively ignorant to fall for some of the misinformation on the internet (Russian or non Russian).

Also, I think it's pretty convenient to blame Russia for the terrible candidate we had on the Democrat ticket. Maybe in absence of Russian meddling she would've won, but it never should have been that close in the first place. On the long list of reasons Hillary lost, Russian meddling is no where near the top.

Hopefully we don't make the same mistake in 2020. Doesn't look great for Trump now but it didn't in 2016 either. If the Democrats are good at one thing, it's snatching defeat from the jaws of victory



Well, you didn't read my post.

We really can't go off whining that the Russians are some sinister, evil and cruel regime - we've known that for decades. So it's on us.

The message being...many of our leaders themselves lack the mental capacity to even function within the most rudimentary lanes of the digital age in which we all now exist. AND those are our 'leaders'....and who them there?

Yup, the people! It is ls no stretch to state that half the country are indeed morons living in the best democracy experiment ever. Don't go thinking today's 'people' are the same as those that started it all. FALSE - the founders saw education would expand and gradual handing over of power would be inevitable. Well the last part came true (sorta)...the 1st part?

Not so much, in an age where information/knowledge and enlightenment is accessible to anyone with a phone (not to mention 1000s of higher education establishments)...we're a nation hell bent on mimicking reality tv shows - which are scripted if you didn't know.

BN747
 
salttee
Topic Author
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: The scope of Russian interference in the 2016 election was larger than previously known

Tue Dec 18, 2018 7:16 am

KICT wrote:
The west should seriously consider isolating Russia from the rest of the world as much as possible - blocking IP addresses, revoking travel authorities, suspending visas of Russian nationals, etc.
Once we get rid of Trump that task will begin.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12690
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: The scope of Russian interference in the 2016 election was larger than previously known

Tue Dec 18, 2018 10:20 am

DeltaMD90 wrote:
On the long list of reasons Hillary lost, Russian meddling is no where near the top.


True, on that list: reason 1 to 1.000 is putting Hillary on the ticket. Literally, everyone should have won from Trump. Still a shame that Sanders wasn't put on the ticket. It would have been very interesting to see what he would have done.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14690
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: The scope of Russian interference in the 2016 election was larger than previously known

Tue Dec 18, 2018 10:30 am

DeltaMD90 wrote:
On the long list of reasons Hillary lost, Russian meddling is no where near the top.


If Trump had won by landslide i´d agree with you, but he won by only a couple of thousand votes and Russian meddling would only have to have had minuscule effects on getting people to vote for him and getting people not to vote for Hillary. And they targeted those with LGB precision.

There may be a long list of things that had more effect on her result than Russian meddling, but that all of them combined would have been enough w/o that extra drop is an increasingly ridiculous notion.

But dang, all the Russian pre-IPO investments into Facebook and Twitter, via Mr. Kuschner no less, paid off quite handsomely. ..

best regards
Thomas
 
salttee
Topic Author
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: The scope of Russian interference in the 2016 election was larger than previously known

Tue Dec 18, 2018 1:58 pm

DeltaMD90 wrote:
On the long list of reasons Hillary lost, Russian meddling is no where near the top.

It's proclamations like that which make some of us suspect that you are a Russian troll. You're certainly spewing the Russian line with that vague slander. The reason Hillary lost support from the deplorable types was the constant flow of false accusations from Whitewater to the Travel office to Vince Foster to Benghazi to the Clinton Foundation and the fact that she used her own server, as those before her had done. Oh, yea, and the fact that she has fat ankles and is a liberal which means she cozys up to blacks and messikens and unamerican people like that.

Neither you nor any of the other Trump Chumps can articulate a single policy difference you have with her. It's all about vagarities and image.

We are told by the experts that if you tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth and so it came to pass with Hillary Clinton. But even with all the years of slander and even the announcement of yet another FBI investigation in the last days of the campaign, she still won the popular vote. Your "long list" failed to bury her.
 
ltbewr
Posts: 15866
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

Re: The scope of Russian interference in the 2016 election was larger than previously known

Tue Dec 18, 2018 4:12 pm

It is difficult to determine how much the Russian election interference scheme worked to the advantage to Trump, there were so many other variables as to both Trump and Ms. Clinton in their campaigns that affected the vote. The real issue is the relatively small number of votes in a few states, in particular Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan, where Trump got the strong majority White male 'blue collar' vote that usually was for Democrats. Those states also saw a flat or lower than expected Black vote, in part due to that Ms. Clinton was not Black (like Obama was) and her lackluster appeal to Black voters in general.
In some states that narrowly went for Trump, Republican party efforts to try to limit voting by non-Whites, including excessive 'cleanup' of voting records, fewer extended voting locations, stricter enforcement of ID laws, fewer voting locations in their neighborhoods, were more likely to affect those voters. Let us also not forget that Ms. Clinton got almost 3 Million votes over Trump, just not in the right place. Her campaign didn't do much in key states and hurt her there. Let us also not forget the strength of Republicans in most states in the majority of State Legislatures and Governors.
I am not discounting the potential affects of the 'Russian Interference' on the 2016 Presidential election, but it may be just a scapegoat to cover other serious factors.
 
salttee
Topic Author
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: The scope of Russian interference in the 2016 election was larger than previously known

Tue Dec 18, 2018 4:28 pm

ltbewr wrote:
It is difficult to determine how much the Russian election interference scheme worked to the advantage to Trump, there were so many other variables as to both Trump and Ms. Clinton in their campaigns that affected the vote. The real issue is the relatively small number of votes in a few states, in particular Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan, where Trump got the strong majority White male 'blue collar' vote that usually was for Democrats.......................

From the LA Times article we learned that in those states, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan, the Russians were active in promoting the Green party - which would siphon off votes from the Dem candidate - and they were also very active in targeting African Americans with disparaging messages: discouraging them from voting.

They couldn't have done better if they tried.

No wait!
 
WIederling
Posts: 10041
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: The scope of Russian interference in the 2016 election was larger than previously known

Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:17 pm

salttee wrote:
From the LA Times article we learned that in those states, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan, the Russians were active in promoting the Green party - which would siphon off votes from the Dem candidate - and they were also very active in targeting African Americans with disparaging messages: discouraging them from voting.


You sure you don't mix that up with Cambridge Analytics ( paid for, underhanded )
activities based on siphoned off Facebook user data to send "best fit for the purpose"
private messaging to various voters apparently of all affiliations.
 
A3801000
Posts: 562
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2016 5:12 pm

Re: The scope of Russian interference in the 2016 election was larger than previously known

Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:41 pm

For anyone interested:

- The Analysis by the University of Oxford and Graphika: The IRA, Social Media and Political Polarization in
the United States, 2012-2018

https://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-content ... t-2018.pdf


- New Knowledge, Canfield Research, Columbia University: The Tactics & Tropes of the
Internet Research Agency

https://disinformationreport.blob.core. ... 121718.pdf
 
User avatar
CitizenJustin
Posts: 869
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 10:12 am

Re: The scope of Russian interference in the 2016 election was larger than previously known

Tue Dec 18, 2018 6:08 pm

WarRI1 wrote:
Yeah, it was bad and the Fox News viewers and other deplorables don't want hear and most are not above the line of even being to comprehend it.


I am convinced more everyday that we have Russian Bots on here, nobody could really be that naive, or dumb to defend these dumb greedy SOBs as we see on here everyday. Talk about sewing the seeds of division, these defenders of such do not have the good of the American People on their minds for sure. We are getting screwed and they defend such as only a Russian Operative would to divide us. No other way to explain it. :eek: :eek:


Well, let’s not forget the nuts on the left who refused to vote for Hillary and were gullible enough to buy into the same Russian propaganda. I remember many supporters of Bernie and others repeating the same debunked lies/conspiracies about Hillary that Trump cult members did. Who knows where we’d be if these people didn’t buy the lies because Hillary lost some locations by an extremely thin margin.

They were willing to vote for people they knew wouldn’t win, potentially gambling away the rights of America’s most vulnerable to make some futile point. I think more research needs to be conducted into WHY people so easily fell for obvious lies. Have people become so uninformed that they fall for the oldest political tricks in the book?
 
User avatar
CitizenJustin
Posts: 869
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 10:12 am

Re: The scope of Russian interference in the 2016 election was larger than previously known, gah I

Tue Dec 18, 2018 6:20 pm

salttee wrote:
DeltaMD90 wrote:
On the long list of reasons Hillary lost, Russian meddling is no where near the top.

It's proclamations like that which make some of us suspect that you are a Russian troll. You're certainly spewing the Russian line with that vague slander. The reason Hillary lost support from the deplorable types was the constant flow of false accusations from Whitewater to the Travel office to Vince Foster to Benghazi to the Clinton Foundation and the fact that she used her own server, as those before her had done. Oh, yea, and the fact that she has fat ankles and is a liberal which means she cozys up to blacks and messikens and unamerican people like that.

Neither you nor any of the other Trump Chumps can articulate a single policy difference you have with her. It's all about vagarities and image.

We are told by the experts that if you tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth and so it came to pass with Hillary Clinton. But even with all the years of slander and even the announcement of yet another FBI investigation in the last days of the campaign, she still won the popular vote. Your "long list" failed to bury her.


The media’s obsession with Hillary’s emails, Benghazi and other “problems” didn’t help either. They talked about it too much, spending way too much time on debunked lies. The amount of time given to Trump in the media was a problem too and they didn’t call him on his lies. They all loved the ratings the 2016 election brought in and calling out his lies wasn’t a priority. We ALL failed miserably in 2016.
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8928
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

Re: The scope of Russian interference in the 2016 election was larger than previously known

Wed Dec 19, 2018 12:47 am

BN747 wrote:

Yeah, whenever I see the tech company reps go to Congress it makes me cringe. I get that many of our elected officials are old but I wish they'd learn a thing or two about technology or at least defer to the experts

What to do about the severely uneducated? I don't know if the internet is a game changer in the uninformed's vote, do you? The internet has opened knowledge like never before in history... And it helps propagate crap. But what was it like before the internet? (IDK, I was too young.) I'm guessing the uninformed were always uninformed, they just did it differently. Maybe not?

tommy1808 wrote:
If Trump had won by landslide i´d agree with you, but he won by only a couple of thousand votes and Russian meddling would only have to have had minuscule effects on getting people to vote for him and getting people not to vote for Hillary. And they targeted those with LGB precision.

Well that's kinda my point, it should never have been this close. We will never know what the election would've looked like without Russian interference, but I could definitely see her winning had it not been for that.

My point was that there were a litany of bigger factors that made her lost. You can probably pick any random factor that lost her a few votes and blamed it on that. Take out a lot of Hillary's missteps (or Hillary herself) and keep the Russian meddling and I think you would've seen President Not-Trump

salttee wrote:
It's proclamations like that which make some of us suspect that you are a Russian troll.

Wow, is the internet really going to be like this from now on? Conspiracy theory websites intrigue me (haven't found a conspiracy I've believed in, it's just fascinating to see the bastardization of logic and reason that goes on there) but whenever anyone points out a flaw in a stupid "theory," they're almost always dismissed as a CIA operative.

It's ridiculous. And you're doing the same exact thing.

Voted for Hillary in 2016, very unenthusiastically. I wasn't in the ballot box with anyone else so I can't say with any certainty, but I think I convinced a few people to vote for her (well, against Trump.)

But guess what? A lot of liberalish millennials did not vote, and I tried convincing them to at least vote, even if they probably would've gone third party. Call them lazy, privileged, etc, whatever. But their reasons for not voting for her were not:
the constant flow of false accusations from Whitewater to the Travel office to Vince Foster to Benghazi to the Clinton Foundation and the fact that she used her own server, as those before her had done. Oh, yea, and the fact that she has fat ankles and is a liberal which means she cozys up to blacks and messikens and unamerican people like that.

Yeah. Ok. The people that went on about all that junk were never going to vote for her in the first place

It wasn't so much the email server that bothered me (which it did, but I looked the other way because Trump) but the completely sleazy way she handled it. Own up to it. Her stupid jokes were not cute. Things like that and the roundabout she gave on things like her speeches to those companies. I'm sure we all knew what she said, but the condescension and holier-than-thou attitude turned a LOT of people I knew that would've voted democrat. She was just slimy, not genuine, and not likeable. Guess I'm sexist, or a MAGA bro/Bernie bro/blinded by Fox propaganda/Russian troll/etc


salttee wrote:
Neither you nor any of the other Trump Chumps

Lol GTFO of here man.

salttee wrote:
she still won the popular vote. Your "long list" failed to bury her.

Well apparently it did bury her because she is not president. Winning the popular vote (which I'm actually in favor of switching to) is as useful as winning the most votes from people named Chester or those with birthdays on Flag Day

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_ ... al_College
 
BN747
Posts: 7934
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

Re: The scope of Russian interference in the 2016 election was larger than previously known

Wed Dec 19, 2018 1:39 am

DeltaMD90 wrote:
BN747 wrote:

Yeah, whenever I see the tech company reps go to Congress it makes me cringe. I get that many of our elected officials are old but I wish they'd learn a thing or two about technology or at least defer to the experts

What to do about the severely uneducated? I don't know if the internet is a game changer in the uninformed's vote, do you? The internet has opened knowledge like never before in history... And it helps propagate crap. But what was it like before the internet? (IDK, I was too young.) I'm guessing the uninformed were always uninformed, they just did it differently. Maybe not?


Good question, periocally, I find myself piecing together patches of memories from the time before the internet.

I remember that when meeting someone at the airport, you look up at the black-n-blue or green old clunky monitors for arriving flights - it gave the gate number and you would go to that gate and watch everyone deplane....heaven forbid if you arrived later to meet the flight.

Required much more detective skills back in the day.

BN747
 
User avatar
Berevoff
Posts: 203
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2018 3:19 pm

Re: The scope of Russian interference in the 2016 election was larger than previously known

Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:14 am

Maybe this will be the bombshell we've been waiting and waiting and waiting and waiting for?
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 14195
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

Re: The scope of Russian interference in the 2016 election was larger than previously known

Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:25 am

CitizenJustin wrote:
WarRI1 wrote:
Yeah, it was bad and the Fox News viewers and other deplorables don't want hear and most are not above the line of even being to comprehend it.


I am convinced more everyday that we have Russian Bots on here, nobody could really be that naive, or dumb to defend these dumb greedy SOBs as we see on here everyday. Talk about sewing the seeds of division, these defenders of such do not have the good of the American People on their minds for sure. We are getting screwed and they defend such as only a Russian Operative would to divide us. No other way to explain it. :eek: :eek:


Well, let’s not forget the nuts on the left who refused to vote for Hillary and were gullible enough to buy into the same Russian propaganda. I remember many supporters of Bernie and others repeating the same debunked lies/conspiracies about Hillary that Trump cult members did. Who knows where we’d be if these people didn’t buy the lies because Hillary lost some locations by an extremely thin margin.

They were willing to vote for people they knew wouldn’t win, potentially gambling away the rights of America’s most vulnerable to make some futile point. I think more research needs to be conducted into WHY people so easily fell for obvious lies. Have people become so uninformed that they fall for the oldest political tricks in the book?



I was horrified at the people that I knew who swallowed this BS hook line and sinker. Men who I was in the Union with for over 30 years voted for this idiot we now have. I have mentioned also on here the campaign of hate before (Obama years) and during the election sent to me by family and friends, Policemen, Union guys, Attorney's. I received hundreds and hundreds of them, many despicable in nature and content.

I still do not usually discuss politics with them, at coffee, lunch or any other time. There are times I would like to tell them just how stupid they were and some still are. Trust me, I bite my tongue most times, but not all. Sometimes when you hear it, you must respond to the stupidity. Self respect demands it. ;) ;)
Last edited by WarRI1 on Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
salttee
Topic Author
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: The scope of Russian interference in the 2016 election was larger than previously known

Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:26 am

DeltaMD90 wrote:
My point was that there were a litany of bigger factors that made her lost. You can probably pick any random factor that lost her a few votes and blamed it on that. Take out a lot of Hillary's missteps (or Hillary herself) and keep the Russian meddling and I think you would've seen President Not-Trump
What were her missteps again? You certainly are practiced and dedicated to remaining vague.
Btw vague innuendo is one of the hallmarks of the Russian propagandists. Just sayin.....
DeltaMD90 wrote:
The people that went on about all that junk were never going to vote for her in the first place
No, the people who spewed the propaganda weren't going to vote for her, that's a given. But the millions of people who keep themselves uninformed, who acquire their opinions via absorption of repeated vague innuendo may well have voted for her were it not for the constant stream of false accusation. That's why the stream of false accusations existed.
DeltaMD90 wrote:
It wasn't so much the email server that bothered me (which it did, but I looked the other way because Trump) but the completely sleazy way she handled it. Own up to it.
More vague accusation from you. I never saw her deny it. Please detail this "sleazy way she handled it" accusation.
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8928
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

Re: The scope of Russian interference in the 2016 election was larger than previously known

Wed Dec 19, 2018 3:05 am

salttee wrote:

I'm not gonna spend the time digging up exact quotes from two years ago and writing a detailed thesis on why I don't like her. What's the point? To convince myself of my own opinions? To prove I'm not a Russian? Lol

Putin doesn't pay me enough rubles to do that anyway. He didn't even give me enough rubles to make my own account on this site, rather he had me steal an existing screen name with easily searchable posts from 2016 lambasting Trump, you know, as part of a ploy to get him elected.

To be fair though, I just said I'm too lazy to detail the exact quotes and reasons why I don't like her from years ago, so I guess it's not fair to ask you to look up my posts from 2016.

Just a left leaning moderate pissed that the Dems blew it in 2016, not impressed with the resistance, and am afraid they'll nominate a crap nominee again in 2020. You do know (right?) that just because someone criticizes something on the left doesn't mean they're in love with the right? I've written the GOP off for the foreseeable future, so I'm stuck with the incompetent Democrats, hoping for the best but am seriously unimpressed
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

Re: The scope of Russian interference in the 2016 election was larger than previously known

Wed Dec 19, 2018 4:33 am

No discussion of the Chinese / globalist effort to elect Clinton? I mean if the Russian effort is so relevant, we will also look at the far larger and better funded Chinese intelligence operation, right?
Last edited by Flighty on Wed Dec 19, 2018 4:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
KICT
Posts: 815
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2017 11:54 pm

Re: The scope of Russian interference in the 2016 election was larger than previously known

Wed Dec 19, 2018 4:34 am

Flighty wrote:
No discussion of the Chinese / globalist effort to elect Clinton?

No, because Hillary Clinton is not the effing President.
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

Re: The scope of Russian interference in the 2016 election was larger than previously known

Wed Dec 19, 2018 4:40 am

KICT wrote:
Flighty wrote:
No discussion of the Chinese / globalist effort to elect Clinton?

No, because Hillary Clinton is not the effing President.


I know, I can see the powerful people being upset. It’s been going on for over 2 years lol. Water is wet. Perhaps that is to blame for this tragedy too.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14690
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: The scope of Russian interference in the 2016 election was larger than previously known

Wed Dec 19, 2018 6:53 am

DeltaMD90 wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
If Trump had won by landslide i´d agree with you, but he won by only a couple of thousand votes and Russian meddling would only have to have had minuscule effects on getting people to vote for him and getting people not to vote for Hillary. And they targeted those with LGB precision.

Well that's kinda my point, it should never have been this close. We will never know what the election would've looked like without Russian interference, but I could definitely see her winning had it not been for that.

My point was that there were a litany of bigger factors that made her lost. You can probably pick any random factor that lost her a few votes and blamed it on that. Take out a lot of Hillary's missteps (or Hillary herself) and keep the Russian meddling and I think you would've seen President Not-Trump


ah.. ok. That makes sense.
But honestly, if she had won, things would have gotten much more ugly. Trump is a unifying factor in a sense, as those 62% not saying they would reelect him can´t be all democrats or greens, there must be decent chunk of Republicans that want America to be great again..... like it was back in the days when bi-partisanship was the norm, and not the noteworthy exception.

best regards
Thomas
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14690
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: The scope of Russian interference in the 2016 election was larger than previously known

Wed Dec 19, 2018 7:00 am

Flighty wrote:
No discussion of the Chinese / globalist effort to elect Clinton?


as long those globalists are US Citizens they get to meddle in elections within the confines of the law. Have you heard anything about illegal campaign contributions from that side?

I mean if the Russian effort is so relevant, we will also look at the far larger and better funded Chinese intelligence operation, right?


I am not sure if the Republican congress did start down this road, at lest legislation to that effect was introduced, but it would not appear to be as widespread, and certainly not as effective, as Russian interference: https://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/st ... any-many-/

best regards
Thomas
 
KICT
Posts: 815
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2017 11:54 pm

Re: The scope of Russian interference in the 2016 election was larger than previously known

Wed Dec 19, 2018 7:11 am

Flighty wrote:
No discussion of the Chinese / globalist effort to elect Clinton? I mean if the Russian effort is so relevant, we will also look at the far larger and better funded Chinese intelligence operation, right?

Did the Bank of China have a server in Clinton's basement like Trump did with Alfa Bank?
 
anrec80
Posts: 2759
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:50 am

Re: The scope of Russian interference in the 2016 election was larger than previously known

Wed Dec 19, 2018 7:16 am

salttee wrote:
DeltaMD90 wrote:
On the long list of reasons Hillary lost, Russian meddling is no where near the top.

It's proclamations like that which make some of us suspect that you are a Russian troll. You're certainly spewing the Russian line with that vague slander. The reason Hillary lost support from the deplorable types was the constant flow of false accusations from Whitewater to the Travel office to Vince Foster to Benghazi to the Clinton Foundation and the fact that she used her own server, as those before her had done. Oh, yea, and the fact that she has fat ankles and is a liberal which means she cozys up to blacks and messikens and unamerican people like that.

Neither you nor any of the other Trump Chumps can articulate a single policy difference you have with her. It's all about vagarities and image.

We are told by the experts that if you tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth and so it came to pass with Hillary Clinton. But even with all the years of slander and even the announcement of yet another FBI investigation in the last days of the campaign, she still won the popular vote. Your "long list" failed to bury her.


And nonetheless she is not a President. Speaking of all these Russian involvement things - indictments, speculations, screaming, sanctions, reports, investigations - where is the result? Where is at least one small violation of any US law proven in court? It's been over 2 years - it's time to have something proven in court. There was a small case against now famous some "Internet Research Agency" which miserably fell apart - Robert Mueller didn't even bother to gather proof. He was also trying to initiate some other proceeding against them, but that one is solely about some technicalities of Foreign Agent Registration law; it won't have anything about "election meddling" or ties to Russian institutions at all.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14690
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: The scope of Russian interference in the 2016 election was larger than previously known

Wed Dec 19, 2018 7:52 am

anrec80 wrote:
Where is at least one small violation of any US law proven in court? It's been over 2 years - it's time to have something proven in court. .


Where have you been the last couple of days, the first Russian national has already pleaded guilty. .....

If you want more evidence in open court nothing is easier to arrange than that: Just hand out the indicted Russians and let it play out......

best regards
Thomas
 
anrec80
Posts: 2759
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:50 am

Re: The scope of Russian interference in the 2016 election was larger than previously known

Wed Dec 19, 2018 8:04 am

tommy1808 wrote:
anrec80 wrote:
Where is at least one small violation of any US law proven in court? It's been over 2 years - it's time to have something proven in court. .


Where have you been the last couple of days, the first Russian national has already pleaded guilty. .....

If you want more evidence in open court nothing is easier to arrange than that: Just hand out the indicted Russians and let it play out......

best regards
Thomas


Yeah, there was that poor girl. First, nothing to do with election, but rather with technicalities of Foreign Agent Registration laws. And second - I do not understand these requests to "hand off and let it play out". Nobody will hand you anyone off, just as you don't hand out your citizens anywhere. You will have to go to Russian court and win the case there. Which again brings the first question - where is your proof?

In addition - you don't even need them here. The State Attorney can arrange an absentee trial. But - even then he will obviously need to have the proof, and be prepared to meet the defendant's attorney. And what happened with Mueller's case against "Internet Research Agency" - exactly those indicted Russians? The firm sent their Attorney to the court, and the attorney did what any other attorney does in any such situation - asks the prosecutor "what's your proof?". And it turned out that Robert Mueller didn't have any at all, whatsoever. So what you wanted to happen actually did happen - the case was heard in an American court and was dismissed. What other issues do you have here?

Yes, the court is a place where you won't have any success without proof. You obviously still can have a lot of success without proof in other places - on a TV show, a newspaper interview, media appearance. But just not court.
 
WIederling
Posts: 10041
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: The scope of Russian interference in the 2016 election was larger than previously known

Wed Dec 19, 2018 9:01 am

Berevoff wrote:
Maybe this will be the bombshell we've been waiting and waiting and waiting and waiting for?


The bombshell has gone off already. Unnoticed by the wider public:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... mp-victory

What happens at the moment is a masking application of (Russian) bear feces and foot prints to obscure that even further.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14690
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: The scope of Russian interference in the 2016 election was larger than previously known

Wed Dec 19, 2018 9:21 am

anrec80 wrote:
Yeah, there was that poor girl. First, nothing to do with election, but rather with technicalities of Foreign Agent Registration laws.


nice way of putting being a foreign agent with the dominant goal of influencing US Politics via the NRA ... you know, the organisation that suddenly spend shit-tons of money to get Donald Trump elected. I wonder how many compromising tapes that Moscow trip generated...

Nobody will hand you anyone off,


you won´t

just as you don't hand out your citizens anywhere.


we do so all the freaking time thank you very much.
.
You will have to go to Russian court and win the case there.


"Russian Court"? Isn´t that an oxymoron these days?

Which again brings the first question - where is your proof?


Under seal of course. We know they have all the evidence, because Judges are not tossing out cases left and right.... and a Federal judge just rules each and every single word in Cohens charging Memos are correct and made the prosecutors opinion his own. You know, the memo that said that Cohen greatly helped them with issues are the core of the SCOs investigation. He has seen the evidence. We know it is there. We knew that before of course, because it all runs by a Grand Jury and is signed off on by the republican DoJ.

In short, we don´t know the evidence, but we have plenty of evidence that compelling evidence exists.

In addition - you don't even need them here. The State Attorney can arrange an absentee trial.


Sometimes your are almost cute. Wouldn´t you like to see how utterly compromised that operation is without having to fear any consequences....

Yes, the court is a place where you won't have any success without proof. You obviously still can have a lot of success without proof in other places - on a TV show, a newspaper interview, media appearance. But just not court.


It is shaping up quite nicely in courts .... i know the script says to attack the legitimacy of the investigation by asking for proof, but of course anyone with a half day´s worth of history class knows that we only get to see evidence when the investigation has concluded and two years makes for a rather short investigation.... Watergate ran for ~4 years, Iran-Contra for more than 7 ...

There isn´t a single Special investigation significantly shorter than this one, any only two rather minor lobbying/influence paddling ones ever concluded around the 2 years mark.

Asking to see proof in public during an ongoing investigation is just flat out stupid, as that is not how it works in a state of law. Of course as a mouthpiece for a joke of a "country" you wouldn´t know what "state of law" even means.

best regards
Thomas
 
KICT
Posts: 815
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2017 11:54 pm

Re: The scope of Russian interference in the 2016 election was larger than previously known

Wed Dec 19, 2018 9:21 am

anrec80 wrote:
Which again brings the first question - where is your proof?

Where is yours?
This is the point of the criminal justice system.
You either believe in it, or you don't.
 
salttee
Topic Author
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: The scope of Russian interference in the 2016 election was larger than previously known

Wed Dec 19, 2018 9:47 am

salttee wrote:
DeltaMD90 wrote:
My point was that there were a litany of bigger factors that made her lost. You can probably pick any random factor that lost her a few votes and blamed it on that. Take out a lot of Hillary's missteps (or Hillary herself) and keep the Russian meddling and I think you would've seen President Not-Trump
What were her missteps again? You certainly are practiced and dedicated to remaining vague.
Btw vague innuendo is one of the hallmarks of the Russian propagandists. Just sayin.....
DeltaMD90 wrote:
The people that went on about all that junk were never going to vote for her in the first place
No, the people who spewed the propaganda weren't going to vote for her, that's a given. But the millions of people who keep themselves uninformed, who acquire their opinions via absorption of repeated vague innuendo may well have voted for her were it not for the constant stream of false accusation. That's why the stream of false accusations existed.
DeltaMD90 wrote:
It wasn't so much the email server that bothered me (which it did, but I looked the other way because Trump) but the completely sleazy way she handled it. Own up to it.
More vague accusation from you. Please detail this "sleazy way she handled it" accusation.
DeltaMD90 wrote:
I'm not gonna spend the time digging up exact quotes from two years ago and writing a detailed thesis on why I don't like her. What's the point? To convince myself of my own opinions? To prove I'm not a Russian? Lol

You are not a very prolific poster, it's easy enough to go back and look at what you were saying in 2016; just clicking on your handle brings it up and there's not that much of it to see. I did that and I found that you were doing the same back then as you are doing now, spewing vague innuendo. You might as well have been on Putin's payroll, you were in lockstep with them then, just as you are now. One difference is that back then you acknowledged that Hillary herself acknowledged using a private server: she "owned it".

If you ever actually have anything to say, be sure and let us know.
 
WIederling
Posts: 10041
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: The scope of Russian interference in the 2016 election was larger than previously known

Wed Dec 19, 2018 10:24 am

KICT wrote:
anrec80 wrote:
Which again brings the first question - where is your proof?

Where is yours?
This is the point of the criminal justice system.
You either believe in it, or you don't.

believe ?

You have to regularly check that the theoretical model corresponds to reality to make such statements.
Afaics this is no longer fully true for the US legal system. Deal making, pushing for guilty pledge in
exchange for quantum leap lower sentence and faked evidence in general have had quite the detrimental effect.
 
KICT
Posts: 815
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2017 11:54 pm

Re: The scope of Russian interference in the 2016 election was larger than previously known

Wed Dec 19, 2018 11:55 am

WIederling wrote:
Deal making, pushing for guilty pledge in exchange for quantum leap lower sentence and faked evidence in general have had quite the detrimental effect.

Okay when you prove any of the evidence against Trump is "fake" (is that you, Vlad?) we'll talk.
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

Re: The scope of Russian interference in the 2016 election was larger than previously known

Wed Dec 19, 2018 1:20 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
anrec80 wrote:
Yeah, there was that poor girl. First, nothing to do with election, but rather with technicalities of Foreign Agent Registration laws.


nice way of putting being a foreign agent with the dominant goal of influencing US Politics via the NRA ... you know, the organisation that suddenly spend shit-tons of money to get Donald Trump elected. I wonder how many compromising tapes that Moscow trip generated...

Nobody will hand you anyone off,


you won´t

just as you don't hand out your citizens anywhere.


we do so all the freaking time thank you very much.
.
You will have to go to Russian court and win the case there.


"Russian Court"? Isn´t that an oxymoron these days?

Which again brings the first question - where is your proof?


Under seal of course. We know they have all the evidence, because Judges are not tossing out cases left and right.... and a Federal judge just rules each and every single word in Cohens charging Memos are correct and made the prosecutors opinion his own. You know, the memo that said that Cohen greatly helped them with issues are the core of the SCOs investigation. He has seen the evidence. We know it is there. We knew that before of course, because it all runs by a Grand Jury and is signed off on by the republican DoJ.

In short, we don´t know the evidence, but we have plenty of evidence that compelling evidence exists.

In addition - you don't even need them here. The State Attorney can arrange an absentee trial.


Sometimes your are almost cute. Wouldn´t you like to see how utterly compromised that operation is without having to fear any consequences....

Yes, the court is a place where you won't have any success without proof. You obviously still can have a lot of success without proof in other places - on a TV show, a newspaper interview, media appearance. But just not court.


It is shaping up quite nicely in courts .... i know the script says to attack the legitimacy of the investigation by asking for proof, but of course anyone with a half day´s worth of history class knows that we only get to see evidence when the investigation has concluded and two years makes for a rather short investigation.... Watergate ran for ~4 years, Iran-Contra for more than 7 ...

There isn´t a single Special investigation significantly shorter than this one, any only two rather minor lobbying/influence paddling ones ever concluded around the 2 years mark.

Asking to see proof in public during an ongoing investigation is just flat out stupid, as that is not how it works in a state of law. Of course as a mouthpiece for a joke of a "country" you wouldn´t know what "state of law" even means.

best regards
Thomas


Really, that Russian girl? She was not even a professional. She was a complete amateur. There are thousands of professionals in the USA, as always. Spies exist and are a thing! This isn't news, this story is using "facts" to suit a story that was prewritten, that Trump is an incorrect president not approved by the people who matter. He was elected by nothings in middle America who don't matter. That is the overall story... not Russia. Russia was there when Obama was elected. In full force. You may recall that Mitt Romney declared that Russia is our #1 enemy.

The reason why we are interested in a Russia story NOW is because it reinforces the biases that we have.

Kind of like "hey that Obama guy can't be president... (bias)... he must have been born in another country! His father must be a Muslim!" And there are facts to support that (for example, his father was a Muslim, and he spent years of his childhood overseas.) To many, that was the headline story. It was also a useless story that exposed people's silly dreams.
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 2385
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: The scope of Russian interference in the 2016 election was larger than previously known

Wed Dec 19, 2018 1:46 pm

KICT wrote:
The west should seriously consider isolating Russia from the rest of the world as much as possible - blocking IP addresses, revoking travel authorities, suspending visas of Russian nationals, etc. In technology with the era of VPNs, etc. this will be difficult but I believe we are in a new "phase" of the Cold War - it never really ended it turns out. Russia - at least the gov't and it's operatives - are the enemy of the people and we should recognize this at all levels of our life.


Aren’t we pretty much doing it by being the largest petroleum exporter taking away Russia’s oil business and damaging their economy? That Trump guy, he’s a real bastard.
 
salttee
Topic Author
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: The scope of Russian interference in the 2016 election was larger than previously known

Wed Dec 19, 2018 1:57 pm

DL717 wrote:
KICT wrote:
The west should seriously consider isolating Russia from the rest of the world as much as possible - blocking IP addresses, revoking travel authorities, suspending visas of Russian nationals, etc. In technology with the era of VPNs, etc. this will be difficult but I believe we are in a new "phase" of the Cold War - it never really ended it turns out. Russia - at least the gov't and it's operatives - are the enemy of the people and we should recognize this at all levels of our life.


Aren’t we pretty much doing it by being the largest petroleum exporter taking away Russia’s oil business and damaging their economy? That Trump guy, he’s a real bastard.

Those sanctions were not put in place by Trump. He can only do so much to kowtow to Putin without getting himself impeached and kicked out of office.

Did you read the LA Times article linked to in the OP? Are you sure that you know what this thread is about?
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14690
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: The scope of Russian interference in the 2016 election was larger than previously known

Wed Dec 19, 2018 1:59 pm

Flighty wrote:
Really, that Russian girl? She was not even a professional. She was a complete amateur. There are thousands of professionals in the USA, as always.


self-debunking argument. She was highly successful, if that was an amateur, the US would have seized to exist a long time ago with thousands of more professionel spies in country.

She was a highly professional, and for her age high ranking spy at that. How do we know that? Because the freaking RU foreign minister called and complained personally the second she was arrested, something that usually is way, way below anything to bother an ambassador with. Those complains normally come from low ranking consular officers....

But i guess any 30 year old low ranking amateur spy can arranged meetings with Dmitri Olegowitsch Rogosin in Russia, or gets to hang out with someone like Alexander Porfirjewitsch Torschin, someone sanctioned for his role in election meddling and .... *puff* disappeared and stepped down right when his agent was arrested.

I think the a Deputy Governor of the Bank of Russia always lays low, and decides to suddenly retire, when some poor 30 year amateur girl gets arrested...

Spies exist and are a thing!


Yes, they are. And they are either under diplomatic cover, or have a cover story allowing the host government plausible denial.

In the case the Russians didn´t even try, there is just a single step between her and Putin via more than one connection.

Russia was there when Obama was elected. In full force. You may recall that Mitt Romney declared that Russia is our #1 enemy.


yeah, please, do share your evidence that the Russians had a huge, expensive influence campaign to get Obama installed. Any notion that a republican congress would have forgotten to investigate that Bengahzi times 10, if there had been even the ever so slightest wiff of it, is so ridiculous, it is pretty much not even worth commenting on....

The reason why we are interested in a Russia story NOW is because it reinforces the biases that we have.


It reinforces all right.... lessons learned way back when the USSR was still real. The bias we are slowly shaking off is the notion that Russia isn´t the USSR in disguise after organized crime has finally taken over, and somehow friendly, honest or trustworthy.

best regards
Thomas
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8928
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

Re: The scope of Russian interference in the 2016 election was larger than previously known

Wed Dec 19, 2018 3:05 pm

anrec80 wrote:

Chill out man... a lot of people (probably you, I don't know) used to probably say "there is no proof, let's wait to see it" back a year or two ago ago and I agreed. I still agree... Let's wait and see the proof. Mueller is probably going to release his findings soon. It's not like there has been absolutely no movement on any front for two years.

A lot has happened in the last few weeks. I hate it whenever something becomes "old news" (usually right before something big or new is released) and people preemptively numb themselves to whatever may come out by saying that the case is closed. Err... no...



salttee wrote:

At first I thought you were trolling and I was amused. But no, you actually think I'm a Russian? Jeez take off your tinfoil hat... it's like the Red Scare all over again. Ask DocLightning or einsteinboricua ("prolific" posters who I assume you don't believe are Russian) who know me in real life and my occupation (hint: probably the opposite of Russian operative) if you're scared of Russian boogiemen posters invading airliners.net :roll:
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

Re: The scope of Russian interference in the 2016 election was larger than previously known

Wed Dec 19, 2018 3:10 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
yeah, please, do share your evidence that the Russians had a huge, expensive influence campaign to get Obama installed. Any notion that a republican congress would have forgotten to investigate that Bengahzi times 10, if there had been even the ever so slightest wiff of it, is so ridiculous, it is pretty much not even worth commenting on....



Exactly, Bengahzi is another good example. There are many facts that support Benghazi (let's just say the fall of Libya in general) was a Clinton project professionally, according to herself: "we came, we saw, he died." Yes, he did, and many others died too. And continue to die.

Benghazi is a dog whistle like Russia. Trump is accused of maybe thinking about a real estate project, while Clinton presided over the fall of a fairly important country, and according to herself, played a key role in its catastrophic descent into anarchy.

Even with all the facts behind the overall issue, admittedly, "Benghazi" became just a catchphrase for idiots who simply didn't want Clinton to be president. Russia, exactly the same thing. Real issue, that also plays to our fantasies. In the USA our fantasies inform a 1 trillion dollar army and a lot of TV/media satellites

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dutchy, johns624, lightsaber, Virtual737 and 22 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos