3 ms·

'As U.S. policymakers remain indecisive over how to prevent a repeat of the 2016 election interference' Was this ever proven? all I ever heard about was conspir

'As U.S. policymakers remain indecisive over how to prevent a repeat of the 2016 election interference' Was this ever proven? all I ever heard about was conspiracy theories around 100k of Facebook ads and Cambridge Analytica being accused of various things. Nothing concrete was ever seriously discussed and the Mueller team findings were inconclusive.

a3n 7y ago
The Mueller team indicted N Russian individuals for that activity. They are not likely to show up for trial. The intelligence community leadership testified to Congress that this was so. The leadership of both parties in both houses of Congress believe it was so, though they differ in what if anything should be done, and the level of downplay or up-play differs depending on party and how close or far to leadership a person is. Or if you're Trump.
- mistermann 7y ago
  Rather than opinion polls, I would love to see some specific accusations with specific supporting evidence, that doesn't consist of a 500 page narrative. I've never encountered anyone who could provide this.
  - a3n 7y ago
    You could look at the executive summaries of the two sections of the 500 page narrative.
    - mistermann 7y ago
      Which contain narrative stories, not specific falsifiable evidence, which is why no one, including you, is ever able to link to anything specific. It's like the cafe scene in Inception.
hackermailman 7y ago
The interference really was only the leaked Clinton emails, the facebook propaganda is just typical propaganda nobody really pays attention to unless it's to confirm their own bias, nobody anywhere changes their political opinion because of something they read on facebook. I doubt Russians had any real influence, the question is those leaked emails, which everybody wants to know the provenance. Personally I think it was just some DNC pro-Bernie activist staffer, who burned from the primary shenanigans decided to leak to Assange and not Russians, (because we all know those radical DNC tech staffers are bernie bros (now Yang shills) from SV) despite the nonsense indicators of compromise that the FBI never saw but was only provided by the DNC themselves. Even if you believe that was a major influencer I don't think so, as a neutral foreign observer of US politics I saw a wild card that the Americans were ready to put into office to 'disrupt' as a protest vote because if anybody remembers, they were only given two choices before the disruptor, Clinton 2.0 or Bush 3.0. They responded accordingly by pushing the maniac into power just to implode the system from what my foreign analysis indicates. I think the most dangerous propaganda are the news propagandists from MSNBC and other networks who pretend to be from your specific subculture/groups, and then feed you lies and propaganda. That to me is the most dangerous, the Russian bots? nope everybody sees through cruise control shilling but when it's somebody from their own group in a news org and they're spouting lies it's a lot more difficult. I'm old so back in the 1990s news propaganda was just absolutely blatant, any kid could tell Norman General Swartzkopf(spelling) was making up bs about 'precision bombs' we all knew they were just landing wherever and blowing up Mother Theresa's Iraq orphanage by accident, but now it's different. The news corps discovered they need to recruit people from specific identities and use them as a weapon to feed lies to their subculture.
- shadowbanme 7y ago
  Honestly I’m still prettt unconvinced by the emails too, for the simple reason that I’d expect Russian intelligence to have a load of information much more embarrassing than those DNC emails. If they’d shared the 33,000 “deleted” emails off Clinton’s private server, then that would have been something. Also I’m interested in the dog that does not bark — Chinese interference in US politics. Does China prefer one side to the other? Which one? What are they doing about it?

a3n 7y ago

The Mueller team indicted N Russian individuals for that activity. They are not likely to show up for trial. The intelligence community leadership testified to Congress that this was so. The leadership of both parties in both houses of Congress believe it was so, though they differ in what if anything should be done, and the level of downplay or up-play differs depending on party and how close or far to leadership a person is. Or if you're Trump.

mistermann 7y ago
Rather than opinion polls, I would love to see some specific accusations with specific supporting evidence, that doesn't consist of a 500 page narrative. I've never encountered anyone who could provide this.
- a3n 7y ago
  You could look at the executive summaries of the two sections of the 500 page narrative.
  - mistermann 7y ago
    Which contain narrative stories, not specific falsifiable evidence, which is why no one, including you, is ever able to link to anything specific. It's like the cafe scene in Inception.

hackermailman 7y ago

The interference really was only the leaked Clinton emails, the facebook propaganda is just typical propaganda nobody really pays attention to unless it's to confirm their own bias, nobody anywhere changes their political opinion because of something they read on facebook. I doubt Russians had any real influence, the question is those leaked emails, which everybody wants to know the provenance. Personally I think it was just some DNC pro-Bernie activist staffer, who burned from the primary shenanigans decided to leak to Assange and not Russians, (because we all know those radical DNC tech staffers are bernie bros (now Yang shills) from SV) despite the nonsense indicators of compromise that the FBI never saw but was only provided by the DNC themselves. Even if you believe that was a major influencer I don't think so, as a neutral foreign observer of US politics I saw a wild card that the Americans were ready to put into office to 'disrupt' as a protest vote because if anybody remembers, they were only given two choices before the disruptor, Clinton 2.0 or Bush 3.0. They responded accordingly by pushing the maniac into power just to implode the system from what my foreign analysis indicates. I think the most dangerous propaganda are the news propagandists from MSNBC and other networks who pretend to be from your specific subculture/groups, and then feed you lies and propaganda. That to me is the most dangerous, the Russian bots? nope everybody sees through cruise control shilling but when it's somebody from their own group in a news org and they're spouting lies it's a lot more difficult. I'm old so back in the 1990s news propaganda was just absolutely blatant, any kid could tell Norman General Swartzkopf(spelling) was making up bs about 'precision bombs' we all knew they were just landing wherever and blowing up Mother Theresa's Iraq orphanage by accident, but now it's different. The news corps discovered they need to recruit people from specific identities and use them as a weapon to feed lies to their subculture.

shadowbanme 7y ago
Honestly I’m still prettt unconvinced by the emails too, for the simple reason that I’d expect Russian intelligence to have a load of information much more embarrassing than those DNC emails. If they’d shared the 33,000 “deleted” emails off Clinton’s private server, then that would have been something. Also I’m interested in the dog that does not bark — Chinese interference in US politics. Does China prefer one side to the other? Which one? What are they doing about it?