Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Has Identified Ongoing Political Influence Campaign (nytimes.com)
Facebook is preparing to announce that it has identified a coordinated political influence campaign, with dozens of inauthentic accounts and pages that are believed to be engaging in political activity ahead of November's midterm elections, The New York Times reported Tuesday, citing three people briefed on the matter. From the report: In a series of briefings on Capitol Hill this week, the company told lawmakers that it detected the influence campaign as part of its investigations into election interference. It has been unable to tie the accounts to Russia, whose Internet Research Agency was at the center of an indictment earlier this year for interfering in the 2016 election, but company officials told Capitol Hill that Russia was possibly involved, according to two of the officials. Facebook is expected to announce its findings on Tuesday afternoon. The company has been working with the F.B.I. to investigate the activity. Like the Russian interference campaign in 2016, the recently detected campaign dealt with divisive social issues. Update: Facebook has confirmed the story, adding: Today we removed 32 Pages and accounts from Facebook and Instagram because they were involved in coordinated inauthentic behavior. This kind of behavior is not allowed on Facebook because we don't want people or organizations creating networks of accounts to mislead others about who they are, or what they're doing. We're still in the very early stages of our investigation and don't have all the facts -- including who may be behind this. But we are sharing what we know today given the connection between these bad actors and protests that are planned in Washington next week. We will update this post with more details when we have them, or if the facts we have change. It's clear that whoever set up these accounts went to much greater lengths to obscure their true identities than the Russian-based Internet Research Agency (IRA) has in the past. We believe this could be partly due to changes we've made over the last year to make this kind of abuse much harder.
Not saying that I'm against them monitoring, but for them to be reporting any group or entity as having undesired influence kind of makes it sound like they can steer the elections (however slightly) to suit themselves. Would be nice if we could collectively be intelligent enough to form our own opinions.
Offended? Find a safe space and cry yourself to sleep.
CNNs front page is completely full of "divisive social issues". Is that where they detected it? I don't even visit Fox News, but it probably is the same.
Don't be surprised if it turns out the DNC and GOP are behind this election interference!
Dark Reflection
this big a threat to our democracy maybe it should just be shut down (not to mention all the other malicious crap FB enables)
I miss the good old days when journalists reported the news rather than trying to create it.
What I've learned here on Slashdot is that any and all news and information that doesn't fit into my beliefs and World view is a "Troll" or in the case of Tesla, because of the "Shorts" AND "Trolls".
Everything and anything that confirms my World view, is the 100% truth.
SocialmediaSecurityAgency needs to be formed up mandated by congress. I am sure it will just as effective as TSA.
So if Facebook finds an American firm working on Brexit or the CIA trying to spread disinformation in Egypt, are we going to get a headline when Facebook uncovers it?
Maybe they should shutdown FB during the election campaign and until the polls are in?
I miss the good old days when journalists reported the news rather than trying to create it.
Man, you are REALLY old there sir...
Journalists used to have moral standards and professional ethics, but some of them have been making themselves the news for decades before I was born. Maybe you mean when the MAJORITY of journalists just reported the news?
That's right; we need to leave influence over ele tions [sic] up to the corporations, like god intended!
Yeah, because that bullshit false dichotomy and false equivalency (congrats on working both logical fallacies into one sentence, I wonder if that's a new record) means we can only allow Russia, China, or one of our other adversaries influence us wantonly by pretending to be us, or else we must submit to corporate influence. Doing neither is not an option, and if one can't be fixed right away, we shouldn't bother trying to fix the other.
Enjoying your vodka, Ivan?
and it magically all makes sense.
I have two explanations for the general reaction of some to reports of interference in the election (and in particular Russian influence).
1. Some of those rejecting the claims and evidence brought forward are indeed Russian trolls.
2. If interference and collusion are proven, it undermines the legitimacy of the Trump presidency. Since for the dedicated Trump base, that's an impossible scenario to even contemplate, outright rejection of any evidence is the only way out of the cognitive dissonance that such evidence creates.
But really, at this point, we have the President and his spokesmen outright saying "Collusion isn't illegal", so there's not even denial now, but simply trying to frame what everyone knows to be true as business as usual. So why anyone seems interested in denying it is beyond me, when Trump himself has pretty much admitted it.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I'm sure they'll let us know if it a coordinated pattern that orginates from the progressive left....
So if I authentically believe grieving parents of murdered children are crisis actors paid off by George Soros, we're still cool Facebook?
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
We act like everything is about Russia? Remember when Obama told Mitt Romney that the 80's called and Russia is no longer a threat? Or that classic reset button Hillary Clinton SOS provided as such a historic moment? If you want to blame someone for Russian influence it started with the Obama administration folks.
Also known as politics
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
People are saying collusion isn't illegal because the entire premise of the Mueller Investigation is that it somehow is. The entire point of the witch hunt is to undermine the legitimacy of an elected president. Nobody was complaining when the Obama and Clinton campaigns spent tens of millions of dollars on artificial social media campaigns, in fact they were celebrated for it!
The Cyber is big.
Been going on since the 60s.
Remember this line Obama said to Romney? "And, the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back, because, the Cold War's been over for 20 years."
Democrats used to mock republicans for bringing up russian influence. Amazingly, a few democrats have since apologized for that mockery.
And before, skepticism about russia was dismissed as an overblown red scare.
Now that democrats believe russians got Trump elected, they are their most stalwart opponents. If Clinton eked this one out, we'd never hear about it again.
If democrats hadn't dismissed skepticism to russia continually for decades, the republican normies might actually take them seriously this time around.
And This Is How You Get Trump.
I wondered, why is it that the summary mentions not just what kinds of false organizations were present that had to be removed?
Following the story link you can see for yourself:
"Aztlan Warriors", "Black Elevation", "Mindful Being", and "Resisters."
Huh! That's odd, not one of those groups represent Trump or Republicans in any way. Kind of funny that was not mentioned in the summary. I'm sure it was just an oversight.
It makes you wonder if groups are going to all the trouble to create false fronts on Facebook, how many people you see at protests are really there because what they are protesting, or how many are there to be paid to stir up trouble - I have thought a lot of Antifa people are probably not really wanting to burn cars/buildings, but that there are selected individuals added to stir up the mob just to create chaos.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The NYT times is reporting these groups were supporting the Abolish ICE movement. Why was that left out of the summary?
The problem is that the US population has no history of being subjected to false information and outright lies.
If you believe that then you have never been exposed to a church. In the words of George Carlin, "you have to stand in awe, in AWE of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest! Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told."
Maybe it is time that we teach our kids to be more critical.
To teach someone to think critically first requires being able to do it oneself.
Verifying information is hard.
Sometimes but not always. Much of the time it barely requires any real effort.
Simply believing what you're told, especially if it fits your personal point of view, is much easier.
That's hard for people who have been conditioned to believe what they are told from a young age. You know, like in a church...
I'm sorry for you if you can only see 2 possibilities out of thousands if not millions.
All of this is BS. If it were true there would be angry mobs of people saying they were convinced by FB to vote for Trump. No such thing exists. Those that wanted to vote for Trump, did. The only angry mobs are butthurt Hillary supporters, and those that disagree with what he's doing. Just like after any other elections.
If you have to check under your bed and in your closet every night before sleep for Russian trolls, please seek professional psychiatric help.
Astro-turfing?
Earth is a single point of failure.
I took his point as that there always will be "foreign" influences in an election. Whether they're other countries, out of state/district corporations, or outside wealthy individuals. You're not going to get around it in a free speech society. It's naive to assume creation of some kind of safe space of only "domestic" speech for an election campaign. To assume nobody's going to "pretend" or attempt to hide behind anonymity is also naive. Assuming voters can't take this in stride is pessimistic.
sounds great, can I watch?
People are saying collusion isn't illegal...
Collusion is just descriptive shorthand for "conspiracy to defraud the United States" which is an actual crime that is being investigated.
1. Some of those rejecting the claims and evidence brought forward are indeed Russian trolls.
I haven't seen ANY evidence, other than $60k of facebook ads AFTER the election happened. I know Muller claimed there was some, but he outright lied and isn't releasing the evidence.
Hacks.
Sydney Bluemnthal - Hacked by Guiccifer 2.0 a Romanian
Podesta - Email password was "password". Anyone who wanted his emails got them, could include Russians.
DNC Server - NEVER viewed by FBI. Crowdstrike looked at it and are unwilling to testify in court that Russia hacked it. No one else looked at that server.
So unless you have some other magical evidence, you just showed you are a moron like the rest of the left that is unable to think for themselves. From your posting history, that isn't much of a jump to conclude.
Back in the 60's there was this one guy, Walter Cronkite (google him) something like 90% of Americans believed it when he said anything.
He retired mostly because he started feeling like he was the ONLY Journalist who reported the News, without distorting it.
Since then, there are no journalists anymore, they are all editorialists who call what they are writing 'news' rather than what it really is, their rhetoric intended to create/sway your opinion on any topic. Hence we have MANY news reports any time a firearm is used wrongly, never a news report when it isn't and a whole generation of kids who think the largest danger to them is actually going to school rather than the reality that car accidents and suicide are the largest dangers to them.
Oh, google is your friend, feel free to google statistics on teen deaths to support my last statement,
I can be so drunk on vodka that I can't even tie my own shoelaces but I would still not be fooled some random posts on the internet. I mean, how stupid must a populace be if they are that easy to fool? I bet they will be either fooled again in the next election and/or told how to vote.
" If interference and collusion are proven, it undermines the legitimacy of the Trump presidency." - Bingo. It's also not going to "stop" when Trump goes to prison either, it's a tar on the GOP as a brand - TRAITORS!
WILLING TRAITORS!
Conspiracy actually is illegal. And no, the point of the Mueller investigation is to investigate claims of illegal conspiracy between members of the Trump organization and the Russian government. Of which multiple Russian nationals have been indicted, and at least one American citizen has pled guilty. It is currently unknown how far into the organization it went- we can speculate, but as of yet only his NSA has pled guilty and only his campaign manager has been indicted on related issues with Russia, so we'll have to see where the evidence goes when a final report is issued.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
They got me.
Personally I'd rather not have large donors of any sort provide financing for campaign advertising. But if you're going to allow that, it should be clear who is providing the financing and the content should be labeled as such - campaign advertising.
Even if you're not going to be that strict, I'd definitely draw the line at foreign government/interests using social media as tool to manipulate and disrupt our elections, - which is quite a bit different than using social media to promote your own candidacy.
Which American pled guilty to collusion with Russia? None, you fuck wat.
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand used a lawfirm, to funnel money to FusionGPS (which is illegal FEC rules wise) that went to a UK national to get dirt on a political opponent. That IS collusion with a foreign entity using campaign money, and is EXACTLY what Muller is looking for in the Trump campaign. Funny how he isn't looking at Clinton's campaign where it did happen.
BTW. Steel likely used that money on Russian informants, which would mean Clinton ILLEGALLY COLLUDED WITH RUSSIA in the election. Literally the EXACT thing Muller is looking for.
Until Clinton is charged, we all know Muller, and you, are full of shit.
None of the people indicted had anything to do with Trump or his campaign. Zero. It's almost as if it was designed so you would believe that they had.
Facebook says the pages ran about 150 ads for $11,000 on Facebook and Instagram, paid for in U.S. and Canadian dollars. The first ad was created in April 2017; the last was created in June 2018.
If interference and collusion are proven, it undermines the legitimacy of the Trump presidency.
It may, but probably not in any actionable way. Even if collusion is proven, the most that could happen would be impeachment and then Pence or Ryan or whoever would become president. The only way we would see a lot of chaos there is probably if Democrats gain a House majority and then both Trump and Pence are implicated in something where both of them get impeached, then we would end up with a Democrat as president. There are a lot of huge "ifs" there though.
Personally, I find it more likely that Mueller will find evidence of things more serious than collusion with Russia (but completely unrelated to the election) and that will take priority, which wouldn't de-legitimize the administration.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Back in the 60's there was this one guy, Walter Cronkite (google him) something like 90% of Americans believed it when he said anything.
He retired mostly because he started feeling like he was the ONLY Journalist who reported the News, without distorting it.
Hmm. Google cronkite stalemate. His editorializing single-handedly turned the tide of American public opinion against the Vietnam War.
So much butthurt in one post.
Nobody was complaining when the Obama and Clinton campaigns spent tens of millions of dollars on artificial social media campaigns, in fact they were celebrated for it!
Why wasn't anyone complaining? Why didn't you complain? Why did you celebrate that? Moreover, what evidence shows they did that?
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
That's just a factually incorrect statement. Look at the indictment against Papadopoulos, for example. I haven't looked at all of the other indictments, but that one example is enough to disprove your claim of zero.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Or a public school...
Only crap public schools which are either underfunded, or run by a bunch of locals according to their religious preferences (which goes back to the church again).
Many of us attended public schools that taught us critical thinking skills and prepared us for university. Then came along a multi-decade effort by religious conservatives to underfund public schools, close them, and replace them with for-profit "charter" schools and home "schooling," with the results we see today: only a tiny minority know how to think critically, the rest just buy into whatever propoganda (usually right-wing, but not exclusively so) that is put before them.
they admitted to doing it, and facebook admitted to wishing they could have helped even more
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Did they do anything illegal? If so, charge them. If not, stop with the "whataboutism."
Past actions do not excuse current crimes, regardless of who is involved.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
It is entirely possible—for those who know what they're talking about—to employ m-dashes here.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
The person who would charge Clinton is Roseinstein. The same guy who committed purgery to get a FISA warrant to spy on Trump campaign to feed Clinton campaign information they were spying from Trump's campaign.
Does that sound like someone likely to charge Clinton?
Let me know how to fire Roseinstein and get someone who isn't corrupt into the DOJ and I'll get her charged.
That Russian Agent ( Maria ) Has stronger ties to Oabma (met with his administration) than the NRA (basically did nothing with them).
Make of that what you will... that and the fact that Obama did nothing about Russian interference despite being warned about a year in advance the Russians were trying to interfere.
What you and others have overlooked is that Obama obviously worked with Trump and Russia to prevent Hillary from being elected. It also fits with Obama being a stronger supporter of Russian actions that Trump. Trump has actually double-crossed Russia, once he was elected Trump proceeded to act directly against Russian interests (just ask 200 dead Russian mercenaries in Syria).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
A little evidence goes a long way to support claims.
Regardless, what you need to determine is whether or not a crime was committed. It is obviously not illegal for any arbitrary person to attempt to influence an election. That is specifically what politicians, PACs, etc do during a campaign.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
I don't mean delegitimization as in impeachment and removal. If the Dems take the House, impeachment becomes a possibility, but even if they do manage to take the Senate, it would probably be by the same margins the Republicans hold it now, which means they won't have the 2/3s vote to remove Trump, so I think removal is incredibly unlikely.
The effect of delegitimizing Trump is more an issue of political capital. If Mueller draws a straight enough line, even if it isn't straight enough to pull the plug on Trump's presidency, and in particular if the Dems do very well this November, delegitimization will greatly reduce cooperation between Congress and the Administration. Even with a Republican-dominated Congress, there's already talk of Congress taking back some of the powers (particularly trade powers) that had been "loaned" to the President, and you can be sure that such delegated powers would start to be stripped from the Executive, particularly if the balance tips towards the Democrats. The President has a lot of constitutional powers all his own, but a lot of what he does is essentially statutory in nature; Congress has passed laws allowing the Executive to do lots of things in many areas of government, and if Congress decides it can no longer trust the Executive, whether out of misdeed or incompetence, or in this situation, simply because the Presidency lacks the political credibility, that is where a loss of legitimacy could see the White House become isolated. And Trump would hardly be the first president to find himself largely shoved in to a corner, and the powers of Congress and the courts to restrain the Executive could make it pretty miserable for him.
The problem for the Republicans in general is that they're stuck between the rock (Trump himself) and the hard place (that solid Republican base that is loyal to Trump). The base can't win a lot of races for them, but they will win a lot less races if that base abandons them. So right now, with mid-terms just a few months away, they have to at least keep bailing water out of the hold to maximize their chances. I think to some extent they're probably overestimating the threat the Democrat's represent; the House is in play (and will likely flip) but the Senate is most likely to stay in Republican hands, though with pretty similar margins as they have now. I think the act of tying themselves so firmly to Trump will in the long run do them more harm than good, and at least a modest break with him, at least on specific files, would probably assist them, but obviously they have their own metrics for that that indicate otherwise.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The issue is selective outrage. If someone who complains about Russia is also making serious efforts to the combat the much more concrete and threatening corporate influence, they probably wouldn't get all that much push back (relatively speaking, obviously,because someone on the internet will be upset about everything).
But if you are focused only on Russia, then it's a scapegoat based on the results, not the underlying bad behavior.
And while pro-Trumpers obviously have that mindset, it's also a sentiment shared by the politically competent anti-Trumpers. You could take Trump down in a heartbeat for colluding with the Saudis or Israel, but he'd be sharing a cell with powerful DC insiders.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
....Who have been quickly shadow-banned for opposing thoughts.
All hail the only true party! Join the blue or be one of the deplorables who are silenced, on media or permanently.
Oh, and just because I can, "f'ing walkingway"
NT
And for good reason. The whole war was a sham and a farce.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
The claim against Papadopoulos is for lying to the FBI - a procedural crime.
It is *not* for 'colluding' with the Russians, or the Chinese, or the Brits.
At this point, RT is more credible than the New York Times. I'm embarrassed to live in a country alongside people for whom this is even "A Thing". Anyone who simply can't help himself from believing Russian Propaganda doesn't deserve to vote.
You saying you can't find evidence DOES NOT invalidate what he said 'tard.
You assume that the base i.e. folks like me are stupid.
No: I don't support President Trump no matter what he does.
But I'm not going to vote to impeach him because he hurts your feelings.
You need not go far. Microsoft, Apple, Google, Facebook etc are ALL essentially foreign entities as bugger all of their wealth and/or operations have anything to do with the US and they are extremely aggressive against any attempt by the US to regulate or tax them as they do actual citizens of the US.
google.com
you mean like the steele dossier.
Get them to fight each other and they won't care what leadership does.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
Surprise butt sex!
I hope your wife likes felching you.
I'm sure there's a portion of that 30% base that could potentially slip, but in general my assumption is that the GOP has done a good enough at attacking Rosenstein and Mueller that the bar for the kind of evidence for malfeasance to see any significant portion of that base abandon Trump would be very high indeed. It's not necessarily a matter of stupidity as it were, but simply that the environment is so polarized that even hard evidence isn't likely to see any significant erosion in his support.
For the Republicans, 2018 may not even be the chief issue. A worst case scenario for them is to have the Dems retake Congress, even by nominal numbers in the Senate (I don't think it's going to happen, it's too stacked against the Democrats to make it likely). Even if the Dems take the House, that will be enough to disrupt the Administration's ability to get its policies through Congress. Trump would likely respond with a series of government shut downs, but if his political capital erodes, even with that 30% base intact, the Dems will likely be able to make a good argument that Administration intransigence and incompetence, with an aim to making even greater gains in 2020.
Honestly I don't see a good way out of this for the Republicans short of Trump deciding not to run in 2020. The signals still seem strong that he will, and certainly, unless things change greatly over the next two years, I see no reason to think Trump would be vulnerable to a primary challenge in 2020. That surely must be what worries Republicans and their contributors, hence the now growing breach between major Republican donors like the Kochs and the party. I could well imagine mainstream Republicans and donors like the Kochs starting a sort of shadow war against Trump's renomination in 2020, with an effort to dislodge Trump's base enough to actually see a primary challenge with some momentum, but again, that's really based on separating Trump from some significant portion of his base. I think it's a long shot, and I see better than even odds that Trump, should he want to, being on the ticket for 2020.
Of course this is all prognostication. Maybe the Dems have a failure to launch this November, and either don't retake the House, or take it by much leaner margins than they're hoping for. If it's a very small majority of Dems in the House, Trump could try on a bill by bill basis to sway some Democrats to support his initiatives. It would require a level of brinkmanship that Trump hasn't shown much talent for yet, and moderating his message enough to convince moderate Democrats that they have more to gain by some level of cooperation.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Maybe, but it's bullshit to say Cronkite was an 'objective journalist'. People just trusted him, never had his 'Dan Rather moment'.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
... Ongoing Political Stupidity By People Who Should Goddam Well Know Better.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Can you explain how the former campaign chairman had nothing to do with his campaign? Is it just title inflation?
Trump broke campaign finance laws. We have tapes proving that in the public domain now.
So we know he is guilty of something, it's just a question of how much. I'm thinking he probably lied about not knowing about his son and campaign manager meeting Russians in his building with his name on it where his campaign was based.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
non sequitur
Popadopoulos for one.
If someone who complains about Russia is also making serious efforts to the combat the much more concrete and threatening corporate influence
There might be a certain amount of cognitive dissonance among people who support the Citizens United decision but are upset at Russia. There are certainly a lot of people who are upset about both though.
It really comes down to what's criminal behavior, though. The Supreme Court has already decided that American corporations are free to influence elections. The rules are different for foreign citizens and people working with them.
It would be great if Citizens United was overturned but I don't see that realistically happening.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
They are a menace to the free world
The thing that's mostly remarkable about this is the fact the US hasn't been caught doing it the other direction. Typically foreign governments, like China, Russia, Iran, etc. are far better at the US at HUMINT, the ability to gather information and influence countries through human contacts, than countries in the West like the US and UK, whereas the West tends to be far more adept at SIGINT style influence, such as telecommunications, financial influence etc. Social media is a mix of the two, so either the US sucks at this or they're much better at it and haven't been caught.
But please guys, we're doing it too. And social media is just a new front; but everyone is engaged in this. People are so up in arms about the Russian influence, whereas we've basically provided funding, organizational, and communication support to every "Color Revolution" for the past 2 decades. Social media allows for similar interactions in a much more cost-effective and faster-delivery way, which means the playing field just leveled a bit. But this is the SOSDD of international politics and has been since the advent of the second human civilization. Why make such a big stink about it?
Actually what you find is the various members of the Intelligence Community saying they have "high confidence" it was Russia. "High confidence" means they have pursuasive evidence; just because they don't reveal it publicly doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Are you going to put your faith in the US intelligence communities, or in Putin and his cronies?
If Rosenstein committed a crime, why isn't he charged? Also, it's "perjury", not "purgery," and his name is "Rosenstein."
Let me know how to fire Roseinstein and get someone who isn't corrupt into the DOJ and I'll get her charged.
OK. Trump can fire him for any reason or none at all. Congress can also impeach him for high crimes and misdemeanors, which include perjury. So if he actually committed perjury or another crime it should be a pretty easy process. If he hasn't, then it's not as easy. A couple Republicans have already drafted articles of impeachment, but they don't allege perjury. Wonder why. Must be all of those Republicans trying to protect the guy feeding information to the Clinton campaign. Which is weird, because Rosenstein wasn't the deputy AG during the campaign at all. The document he signed, after Trump nominated him, was to extend surveillance of Page, not begin it, and by then the Clinton campaign was dead and cold.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Never said he was. I referred only to the Vietnam War as a sham and a farce.
The enemy of my enemy is my...well fuck I don't even care, as long as they take each other out, or one preys on the other.
Not that you asked before putting words in my mouth that I didn't ever say, but the farce and the sham that was the entire buildup to the Vietnam war and the war itself didn't happen over the preceding decades without a ton of help from the news media.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
Neat fantasy. I hope it helps you get through the next 7 years without a psychotic break and/or suicide.
I look forward to the studies decades from now detailing the psychological damage done by the media's constant Russia/Mueller blueballing. Going years and years constantly believing that A) Literal Hitler is in charge of the world and is actively conspiring with Russians and Israelis and The Sith to literally kill everyone, and B) The brave, noble Special Prosecutor is mere moments away from bringing him down must be SO stressful.
I'm especially curious how the true believers will react when nu-Ken Starr finally nails Trump for jaywalking after 6 years of investigating and Trump gets the same 20 point "OH MY GOD NO ONE FUCKING CARES" poll bump that Bill Clinton got as the sad impeachment shitshow proceeds.
There is certainly a legal difference. But from a practical perspective, it's one group of oligarchs vs. another, and their geographical location is largely irrelevant in regards to the people being represented. To the extent to which it does matter, the local oligarchs are a bigger threat, for many of the same reasons that people you know are the most likely to murder you, and why most accidents happen at or near your home.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Your argument lacks one critical point of view, which is the opposition point of view.
Democrats think they are going to win these coming elections.
Republicans will continue to win.
Democrats will continue to not understand why.
Russiagate Continues.
When Democrats start to realize that Democrats AND Republicans are BOTH losing to Trump, then maybe you guys will start to make some turn-around plays.
Until then, enjoy the sheet show. /discuss
Was a pawn battle in a larger war. That is all it was.
You should be grateful the Soviet Union is only a bad memory and Vietnam has a healthy capitalist economy, no thanks to Cronkite.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Hillary made me despise her all on her own with her snobby bull and that "deplorables" statement.
How did you experience her behaviour, or hear about her 'deplorables' comment? Was it in person, or was it presented through some reportage?
Where those reporting that behaviour doing so because they noted an uptick in interest from pieces like that? Did they remain 'topical' for longer as a result of manipulation of systems used to judge 'newsworthiness'?
More, it's easier to smear someone than to persuade that someone is worthwhile. Persuading someone to vote for Trump is difficult. Making Hillary a less appealing candidate is easier (and contrariwise - this isn't a comment on the relative worth of either candidate, just the relative ease of shifting opinion).
Influence doesn't work by persuading one individual at a time to change their mind. It's a subtle process that plays numbers, tips balances and frames discourse. If you can add some phrases and soundbites that the already persuaded can use to shut down criticism, so much the better.
But are we supposed to believe that the Russians have some kind of magical powers to sway every single fucking vote? I think not.
This is an argument from incredulity. No one is claiming that they have the power to sway every vote. The argument is that they made an attempt to sway the vote. The degree to which this could be or was successful is another matter entirely, but the way it would work is certainly not your strawman.
We're still in the very early stages of our investigation and don't have all the facts -- including who may be behind this.
It will be really fun if they discover it is the a US political party... or some internet tycoon... or an US security agency... or a foreign country considered as an ally...
Because while we're busy fighting amongst ourselves, we're barely paying attention to what our betters are doing in attempts to pass pro-globalist treaties such as the TPP, and laws that turn "fair use" into "fair pay".
That warm, wet feeling on your leg really isn't the Bilderberg elites pissing on you, with all the money that goes towards the NGOs and PACs that actually fuel the activist groups and astroturfing agencies that drive most of the chaos, discord and divisiveness. No, it's Russia making it rain with twitter trolls and facebook ads!
Republicans will find it easy to find the same "possible collusion" between Democrats and agents of China - who now is as desperate to avoid Trump as the Russians were with Clinton - especially if they commission another dossier from a supplicating ally (looking at Australia).
Agents of China buying 100k worth of US social media presence? Pocket change.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
From the har har department, what claim will they think of next.
It's not even to delegitimize. President Trump is an outsider, he has no legitimacy.
This is much more a cynical cannibalism of the democrat party itself, to try to keep itself together after having no excuse to lose an election and having cheated Bearnie Sanders in the primary.
So some are doing it to deflect from why they lost, some to try to unify against an outsider, others to talk about something else then fixing the primaries, etc. But it's mostly a sorrow attempt to keep democrats together.
I like how the fucking dipshit losers who lost EVERY FUCKING POSSIBLE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT are here to lecture Republicans about their base.
The crime being investigated isn't "did Russia cause every voter to vote for Trump". It isn't even "did Russia cause the election to change" (although with the difference in the election being less than 20K votes in 3 medium->large states, there's definitely an argument). It even isn't "did Russia interfere"- we have that answer already. Its "did the Trump organization work with them". If they didn't, then they're free and clear. If they did, then they committed a crime and should be punished for such.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Micheal Flynn. George Popadopolous. Paul Manafort. Two of whom have plead guilty. Popadopolous has admitted he lied before Congress and actually did have illegal contact with the Russians. As has Flynn.
Unless you want to claim his campaign manager, a man named as one of his foreign affairs advisors, and his Nation Security Advisor who worked on his campaign and spoke at his nominating convention have nothing to do with him.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Fusion was initially funded by a Republican. Hiring a foreign company is not illegal. Conspiracy with a foreign government is. Nor is paying foreign nationals for services rendered, like giving information. But working with a foreign government to influence an American election is illegal. This is what's being investigated. Everything you just said is a smoke screen to try to confuse things.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
You do understand there are political cycles here. After all, a decade ago the Republicans lost control of the White House and Congress.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Campaign finance law requires disclosure. That's why questions about Cohen's paying off Daniels is an issue. If he spent money, even his own money, to get rid of a problem that gave Trump benefit during the campaign, that is a campaign contribution, and has to be declared.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Since Slashdot didn't put at least two submissions on the topic, for your perusal:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/fe...
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Silly me.
I misinterpreted the headline "Facebook Has Identified Ongoing Political Influence Campaign" as Facebook has been identified has having been carrying out a political influence campaign.
They wouldn't do such a thing, now would they?
No more than Twitter would.
OK, that may not have been the best way to put it.
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.