4 ms·

There is so far no evidence of them influencing the election in any way.

by 0xbear 9y ago

danenania 9y ago
There's plenty of evidence that they conducted a massive, highly sophisticated propaganda/cyber warfare campaign. It's impossible to prove that it did or didn't tilt the election, but it clearly could have given the extremely thin margins in key states. I'd say that counts as influence.
- 0xbear 9y ago
  Present some then. Thus far the best that I’ve seen is $100k in FB ads to peddle the divisive topics typically peddled by the democratic establishment.
  - danenania 9y ago
    https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4664750/excerpt-clinton-watts-testimony-senate-intelligence-committee-hearing https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4664750/excerpt-clinton-watts... https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/the-intelligence-community-report-on-russian-activities-in-the-2016-election/2153/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/the-inte... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/russian-trolls-hilary-clinton-fake-news-election-democrat-mark-warner-intelligence-committee-a7657641.html?amp http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics... That's like 1/1000th of the publicly reported evidence you can find by googling.
    - 0xbear 9y ago
      This is not what I’d call hard evidence. This is testimony, by people whose careers depend on saying there was interference. Fact of the matter is, around this time last year the same outlets you link here (except cspan) we’re projecting that Trump had a 7% chance of winning the election. In the presence of “interference”, the odds would probably be different. It’s only when the anointed heir to the throne didn’t win that anyone started talking about “interference”.
      - danenania 9y ago
        Right, so what you actually mean is there's no evidence that fits your worldview. Got it.
        0xbear 9y ago
        No, I mean documented, actual evidence either presented as-is, or at least reviewed first hand by a neutral, trusted third party. Not some kooky WaPo bullshit.
        dontreact 9y ago
        What counts as a neutral, trusted third party. With respect to this issue, does the US intelligence community count? If so, then does the second link, a link to the report meet your standards of evidence? If not, then I'm not sure what kind of third party you are imagining. What would be the intelligence community's reason to coordinate and issue false statements on this?

There is so far no evidence of them influencing the election in any way.

by 0xbear 9y ago

There is so far no evidence of them influencing the election in any way.

There's plenty of evidence that they conducted a massive, highly sophisticated propaganda/cyber warfare campaign. It's impossible to prove that it did or didn't tilt the election, but it clearly could have given the extremely thin margins in key states. I'd say that counts as influence.

0xbear 9y ago
Present some then. Thus far the best that I’ve seen is $100k in FB ads to peddle the divisive topics typically peddled by the democratic establishment.
- danenania 9y ago
  https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4664750/excerpt-clinton-watts-testimony-senate-intelligence-committee-hearing https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4664750/excerpt-clinton-watts... https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/the-intelligence-community-report-on-russian-activities-in-the-2016-election/2153/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/the-inte... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/russian-trolls-hilary-clinton-fake-news-election-democrat-mark-warner-intelligence-committee-a7657641.html?amp http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics... That's like 1/1000th of the publicly reported evidence you can find by googling.
  - 0xbear 9y ago
    This is not what I’d call hard evidence. This is testimony, by people whose careers depend on saying there was interference. Fact of the matter is, around this time last year the same outlets you link here (except cspan) we’re projecting that Trump had a 7% chance of winning the election. In the presence of “interference”, the odds would probably be different. It’s only when the anointed heir to the throne didn’t win that anyone started talking about “interference”.
    - danenania 9y ago
      Right, so what you actually mean is there's no evidence that fits your worldview. Got it.
      - 0xbear 9y ago
        No, I mean documented, actual evidence either presented as-is, or at least reviewed first hand by a neutral, trusted third party. Not some kooky WaPo bullshit.
        dontreact 9y ago
        What counts as a neutral, trusted third party. With respect to this issue, does the US intelligence community count? If so, then does the second link, a link to the report meet your standards of evidence? If not, then I'm not sure what kind of third party you are imagining. What would be the intelligence community's reason to coordinate and issue false statements on this?