3 ms·
This is a stupid conspiracy theory to spread. The money was never spent as of less than a year ago. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/04/world/europe/state-depar
by javagram 8y ago
This is a stupid conspiracy theory to spread.
The money was never spent as of less than a year ago. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/04/world/europe/state-department-russia-global-engagement-center.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/04/world/europe/state-depart...
President trump’s administration controlled the spending of these funds and clearly they weren’t very eager to do so.
- rightbyte 8y agoSo the counter argument is that the Trump admin didn't found Huff Post? The original plan was that Trump would lose.
- SlowRobotAhead 8y agoHmm, so opposing view points should be silenced because you don't agree with them? I don't even agree with the one I posted but you felt you had to silence me for mentioning it exists. I don't even mind that your NYT article doesn't seem to be about the NDAA signing that moved $160 [0], not $120 million to fight disinformation. Are you sure you that is the same topic? [0] Two years at $80 million each https://www.congress.gov/114/crpt/hrpt840/CRPT-114hrpt840.pdf https://www.congress.gov/114/crpt/hrpt840/CRPT-114hrpt840.pd...
- javagram 8y agoOf the $160m, $120m was allocated to the state department. Please see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countering_Foreign_Propaganda_and_Disinformation_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countering_Foreign_Propagand... if you want to educate yourself. I didn’t “silence” you I responded with facts. It’s fine to share a conspiracy theory for discussion/analysis IMO but it should always at least be accompanied with the facts so that people are not tricked into believing the fake news. Sharing it without a debunking, despite a disclaimer that you don’t believe it, makes your disclaimer less than credible in many cases.