4 ms·
I'd say the bigger issue in 2016 was the Russian interference, which has been proven and has lead to convictions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interfer
by craftkiller 7mo ago
I'd say the bigger issue in 2016 was the Russian interference, which has been proven and has lead to convictions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20...
> Simultaneously, the Republican-led Senate and House Intelligence Committees conducted their own investigations into the Russians' activities. The Senate committee's report, released in five volumes between July 2019 and August 2020, found that the Russian government had engaged in an "extensive campaign" to sabotage the election in favor of Trump
I'm also curious how you think Cambridge Analytica was debunked. I don't see any mention of debunking on their wikipedia page, but I do see facebook being fined billions for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Analytica_data_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Ana...
- rattlesnakedave 7mo agoThe Russian collusion narrative has been completely debunked.
- esseph 7mo agoReally? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_investigation_origins_conspiracy_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_investigation_origins_c...
- phtrivier 7mo agoIn a battle of "this narrative has been debunked" / "no it has not", the person who can provide links to inquiry on the narrative kinda prevails over the person who does not provide links to the debunk. I say "kinda", in the sense that "it matters to people interested with dispassionnately learning about the subject", not "it will convince anyone to change their mind".