President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

Hank Scorpio

NinjaKirby wrote: »

When you consider also how much people absolutely will not accept being "Wrong On The Internet" you can see how that stubbornness can come across as trolling or just straight up malicious dishonesty.

There are plenty of people who have been demonized online or had their careers and/or lives ruined without the shadowy presence of "The Russians".

The focus of what the Russians may or may not have done should really be on any illegal hacking or theft that has taken place.

If it turns out that there is some massive factory in Russia where people make up fake blogs and Facebook posts and tweets then that is certainly a very interesting concept but to what extent is that even illegal?

I don't know the legality but I often find the Russian bots line is a way of to discredit Trump's online presence. David Brock created a super pac called correct the record which spent millions paying people to attack anti HRC posts on reddit, facebook and so on. Never gets brought up here though :pac:

NinjaKirby

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't for a minute imagine that Trump sees himself as the obedient servant of Moscow. More that he is close enough to the Russians, and is surrounded by people who are close enough to the Russians, that the Russians are in a position to manipulate him, to some extent. He himself would not recognise that this was happening because, to his mind, it would be simply unthinkable that anyone could manipulate him.

But, as I say, even if the Russians can manipulate him, there's a limit to what they could achieve with that, since he lacks the political awareness or skills to be an effective president.

The payoff here for the Russians may not actually be that they get to control or influence the US through it's president, but just that they get to ensure that the US has an ineffective president who can achieve nothing, and who will diminish the stature, influence and respect the US enjoys internationally.

This is how I have pretty much always felt about any leader of any nation. Not that they are close to the Russians specifically but that they are always surrounded by people who are trying to get close enough to the President to subtly manipulate and influence.

Which is why you need a strong person with political know how and experience in the role of President. Trump is obviously not this.

It may well turn out that you are right.

spacecoyote

Picked up on this in the FT today.

You need to sign up to the site to download a copy of the book, but their review was that its a clear concise read which doesn't get too bogged down in technical economic jargon, so should make for a good read, for anyone interested.

http://voxeu.org/content/economics-and-policy-age-trump

aloyisious

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

You brought Breitbart up in a totally unrelated topic for some reason.

I'll ask again, was it ok for people to leak UK intelligence on the Manchester attack or are leaks only selectively ok as long as it's damaging to Trump?

I agree with you that it was wrong for "people high in the US Justice Admin" to leak info on an ongoing UK bombing criminal inv case, as there is a clear risk that existing bombing cells in the UK would become aware of their deficiencies and take steps to correct them; change methods of carrying/disguising bombs at the least.

There is a difference between that and releasing info on hacking injurious to US interests. Attacking the people revealing classified material on the criminal acts of the hackers is OK, if the revelations were damaging to US interests, but not so when the hackers are deliberately attacking US interests. The greater good of the US is not being served then. It's worth keeping in mind which is the real enemy of the US.

Edit, given the modus operandi of the London terror team, the justice admin leak may have already caused a change.
This actually does have a link to the Trump thread as Don did a bit of "official" leaking himself a week before the justice leak. He did so on the grounds that the info passed on by the UK in good secrecy faith was not theirs after that stage, but now US Govt classified material which he was legally allowed to declassify and reveal publicly.

Hank Scorpio

aloyisious wrote: »

I agree with you that it was wrong for "people high in the US Justice Admin" to leak info on an ongoing UK bombing criminal inv case, as there is a clear risk that existing bombing cells in the UK would become aware of their deficiencies and take steps to correct them; change methods of carrying/disguising bombs at the least.

There is a difference between that and releasing info on hacking injurious to US interests. Attacking the people revealing classified material on the criminal acts of the hackers is OK, if the revelations were damaging to US interests, but not so when the hackers are deliberately attacking US interests. The greater good of the US is not being served then. It's worth keeping in mind which is the real enemy of the US.

If it wasn't clear from my original post I neither commented one way or another on what she did, or her getting caught. I linked the story which was breaking at the time. For some reason breitbart and the alt right conspiracy gets brought up. Some people here are so worked up linking a story that is neither positive or negative towards Trump is seen as a defence of him.

Professor Moriarty

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I don't know the legality but I often find the Russian bots line is a way of to discredit Trump's online presence. David Brock created a super pac called correct the record which spent millions paying people to attack anti HRC posts on reddit, facebook and so on. Never gets brought up here though :pac:

Correct the record? An admirable and moral thing to do in the face of fake news attacking HRC. Good man Brock.

Just a thought, is he anything to Brock Lesner?

Hank Scorpio

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Just a thought, is he anything to Brock Lesner?

I'm impressed by the level of discourse concerning this topic , I suppose it's inconceivable to mention CTR in a discussion about social media.

Back on topic, what horrible things has Hitler, er Trump, gotten up to today. I heard a rumor he gets two scoops of ice-cream and everyone else only gets one. What a bastard!

Really Interested

US 'rethinking UN human rights role'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40173472

Well I suppose it might force China to be the main advocate of Human Rights.

If he ditches HR it will play well with his core.

Timberrrrrrrr

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I'm impressed by the level of discourse concerning this topic , I suppose it's inconceivable to mention CTR in a discussion about social media.

Back on topic, what horrible things has Hitler, er Trump, gotten up to today. I heard a rumor he gets two scoops of ice-cream and everyone else only gets one. What a bastard!

Well i guess the poat after this answered your question, going to make a cup of coffee and come back, am interested in seeing how you put a positive spin on this as being a good thing.

mcmoustache

NinjaKirby wrote: »

Is this really such an outrageous talking point?

Nope. Not that outrageous at all. That's the point. If it was outrageous, it wouldn't work.

NinjaKirby wrote: »

Here's my issue. You are talking about Russian trolls and people not arguing in good faith but then how can anyone know that you are not just a troll from the other side?

The trolls and the lack of good faith are two separate issues. You don't know that I'm not a troll from the other side (whatever that is - "NOT Russia"?). For what it's worth, I don't think there are any in this thread.

The lack of good faith that I was referring to involved posting stuff known to be untrue.

NinjaKirby wrote: »

If there was a pattern on this tread of certain posters aggressively going after anyone who posts anything that deviates from the norm then wouldn't that suggest that there is some coordinated attempt to control the discourse?

It could but it's also a common response to bullshít. The difference between the two is easy enough to spot.

NinjaKirby wrote: »

Do the Democrats and Republicans in the US not have troll farms of their own?

They don't need to. Partisan politics over there ensures that there are plenty of brainwashed eejits available to do it for free. That's not to say that they don't do it to help control or influence certain narratives. There are private companies specialising in PR that can provide these services to anyone.

NinjaKirby wrote: »

I don't doubt now that Russia has tried to influence the US elections but actually I don't care because I do not for one second believe that the Russian Government is somehow the ONLY group in the world with the ability to manipulate opinion online.

The main focus in that discussion has to be on actual state-funded, illegal, hacking and theft. Not "trolling" on messageboards or fake stories spreading on Facebook.

Nobody's claiming that the Russians are the only ones doing this. I'm not sure where you got that idea from. The hacking and theft should certainly be investigated but the bigger picture should be and is being investigated.

Professor Moriarty

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I'm impressed by the level of discourse concerning this topic , I suppose it's inconceivable to mention CTR in a discussion about social media.

Back on topic, what horrible things has Hitler, er Trump, gotten up to today. I heard a rumor he gets two scoops of ice-cream and everyone else only gets one. What a bastard!

What with denying climate change, sending nasty tweets about terrorist attacks, sending more tweets attacking his Justice Dept. etc. he must be in need of some R&R. Why shouldn't he stuff two scoops of ice cream into his ugly puss?

You think Trump is a bastard? Harsh but I feel your pain. In the context of your hatred for The Donald and his deluded self-portrayal as a successful businessman, this is relevant:

The last line from the film The Professionals comes from Rico having been called a bastard:

Yes sir. In my case an accident of birth, but you, you're a self-made man.

aloyisious

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

If it wasn't clear from my original post I neither commented one way or another on what she did, or her getting caught. I linked the story which was breaking at the time. For some reason breitbart and the alt right conspiracy gets brought up. Some people here are so worked up linking a story that is neither positive or negative towards Trump is seen as a defence of him.

Yup on your first about the arrest and charging of the woman and the breaking news. Re the second, we be human and do tend to get our knickers in a twist on positioning, kind'a reveals who's human and not the alt version of keyboard users. To make my meaning clear, showing annoyance is human. I don't follow breitbart as I find swearing at Fox News on TV around 11PM exciting enough.

hinault

BlinkingLights wrote: »

Well, it must be incredibly frustrating for anyone with any sense or logic to work under the Trump administration.

He and his team will probably cause the loss of loads of people from the federal government. That's just going to cause a brain drain.

I can't imagine how head wrecking implementing and defending his agenda must be for senior civil servants, diplomatic staff, technical staff and even the US security services and military.

`

The permanent government are there to serve the state, regardless of which party's president occupies the WH, and regardless of which political party control the Senate and the House.

If policies are legal, it is the duty of the permanent government to implement those policies without fear or favour

Hank Scorpio

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

What with denying climate change, sending nasty tweets about terrorist attacks, sending more tweets attacking his Justice Dept. etc. he must be in need of some R&R. Why shouldn't he stuff two scoops of ice cream into his ugly puss?

Genuinely lol'd.

mcmoustache

NinjaKirby wrote: »

If it turns out that there is some massive factory in Russia where people make up fake blogs and Facebook posts and tweets then that is certainly a very interesting concept but to what extent is that even illegal?

Nothing illegal about it. I'm not sure anyone made that argument.

There are investigations ongoing into Russian interference and the Trump campaign. The troll farms are a small part of this and they are being discussed because it's a relatively new concept for a lot of people.

mcmoustache

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I don't know the legality but I often find the Russian bots line is a way of to discredit Trump's online presence. David Brock created a super pac called correct the record which spent millions paying people to attack anti HRC posts on reddit, facebook and so on. Never gets brought up here though :pac:

Everything you've said here is true. The use of bots to explain his online presence is most likely overstated but I haven't seen people here claim that bots are most of his following. As for mister Shareblue, whatever about his garbage website, there's a big difference between him running a pro hillary troll farm and Trump colluding with Russians with a troll farm being one prong in the attack.

CMOTDibbler

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I don't know the legality but I often find the Russian bots line is a way of to discredit Trump's online presence. David Brock created a super pac called correct the record which spent millions paying people to attack anti HRC posts on reddit, facebook and so on. Never gets brought up here though :pac:

If you can't see the difference between a US citizen trying to influence an election and a foreign power doing the same thing, then you're a little lost. The methods are irrelevant.

Hank Scorpio

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

If you can't see the difference between a US citizen trying to influence an election and a foreign power doing the same thing, then you're a little lost. The methods are irrelevant.

I didn't say they were the same thing, someone implied in previous posts that Trumps online based were non existent and the social media push was due to Russian bots. Then another poster mentioned trying to distinguish between real posters and those who were being disingenuous and/or bots, which is why I brought up CTR.

As an example, Alex Jones started a competition called "cnn is isis" or something a couple of days ago and that phrase became the 2nd highest trending topic on twitter in a matter of hours.

ThisRegard

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Alex Jones started a competition called "cnn is isis" or something a couple of days ago and that phrase became the 2nd highest trending topic on twitter in a matter of hours.

The same Alex Jones who claims what he does is just performance art, his Inforwars persona just a character he plays and doesn't actually relate to his real self?

Hank Scorpio

ThisRegard wrote: »

The same Alex Jones who claims what he does is just performance art, his Inforwars persona just a character he plays and doesn't actually relate to his real self?

What's your point?

ThisRegard

Nothing really, other than he's just a character, apparently, doing such things for the lols.

mcmoustache

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

If you can't see the difference between a US citizen trying to influence an election and a foreign power doing the same thing, then you're a little lost. The methods are irrelevant.

I like that we've moved on from "that didn't happen" to "ok it happened but what about Hillary".

CMOTDibbler

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I didn't say they were the same thing, someone implied in previous posts that Trumps online based were non existent and the social media push was due to Russian bots. Then another poster mentioned trying to distinguish between real posters and those who were being disingenuous and/or bots, which is why I brought up CTR.

As an example, Alex Jones started a competition called "cnn is isis" or something a couple of days ago and that phrase became the 2nd highest trending topic on twitter in a matter of hours.

I'm failing to see the relevance of any of this to the post you replied to. The salient point was that Russian hacking was illegal and bot activity unlikely to be. To which you dragged up some "the other side are doing it" whataboutery.

Hank Scorpio

mcmoustache wrote: »

I like that we've moved on from "that didn't happen" to "ok it happened but what about Hillary".

Twist and turn, I never said it was the same thing.

I love the use of "we" on this forum. It's almost like there's an agenda.

CMOTDibbler

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I love the use of "we" on this forum. It's almost like there's an agenda.

Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the use of plurals when referring to more than one person?

Hank Scorpio

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I'm failing to see the relevance of any of this to the post you replied to. The salient point was that Russian hacking was illegal and bot activity unlikely to be. To which
you dragged up some "the other side are doing it" whataboutery.

I was having a back and fourth with a poster where we both agreed that Trump had a large online base.

Here's my issue. You are talking about Russian trolls and people not arguing in good faith but then how can anyone know that you are not just a troll from the other side?

If there was a pattern on this tread of certain posters aggressively going after anyone who posts anything that deviates from the norm then wouldn't that suggest that there is some coordinated attempt to control the discourse?

Do the Democrats and Republicans in the US not have troll farms of their own?

Tell me how bringing up CTR isnt relevant in that context.

Ipse dixit

Do people really believe that Russia tampered with votes in the US election? Over 59% of Democrats do. Surely Irish people couldn't be as gullible as that.

Another pointless political distraction that the media and their masses are focusing on.

Unless Putin controlled people's votes or tampered with voting then I'm not sure what people actually want to do about it. Could you imagine the US crying to the UN about foreign interference in its own elections?

If were talking about a misinformation campaign then maybe they could look at their own internal misinformation campaigns rather than complaining about what dirty secrets Russia is unconvering on US politicans.

Maybe if they all weren't so shady and corporate shills then you wouldn't have the Russians being able to influence US politics.

Christy42

As much as I have disagreed with him I agree with Hank.

Someone who supports Trump is not necessarily a Russian bot.

Hank did not give the example of Alex Jones to support Jones. Just to show that if someone famous says something their followers will get it trending whether or not it makes any sense whatsoever.

Realistically even putting a lot of effort into it the best strategy would be to just have a few people repeating the same phrases over a few different places and let the masses catch on.

That is what I believe the discussion is about. We seem to have gotten off topic and I am a little unsure as to what the more recent counter arguments to Hank have been about (and I really really disagree with him a lot here most of the time). Han stated that the woman had been arrested but did not give an opinion on it. No need to attack that. Move on to the main topic of discussion imo (either a leakers has been caught or the leaks themselves).

NinjaKirby

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

If you can't see the difference between a US citizen trying to influence an election and a foreign power doing the same thing, then you're a little lost. The methods are irrelevant.

The methods absolutely are relevant.

The fake information is being circulated on the Internet.

The Internet is not part of America and America does not own the Internet.

So if a foreign power is using hardware and software in their country to place information on the shared space that is the Internet there has to be a question of the exact nature of any influence.

It's not like thugs funded by the Russian government are stalking the streets of LA or New York and intimidating people into voting a particular way. It's not like Putin is giving money to American TV, radio and newspaper outlets to undermine the election. If anything, the domestic American media was strongly anti-Trump.

The Internet is not America.

We are talking about a situation where Russia could be creating propaganda and putting it out there online but it's not even on the level of putting flyers through peoples doors or dropping propaganda leaflets from aircraft.

The American voter has to switch on their computer and log in and go and find the information themselves. Then with the same device they used to find this misinformation they are absolving themselves of any obligation to fact check. Then they have to take it upon themselves to share what they have found online.

The methods are relevant because there is a bit of a cop out going on here where the losing side are able to just blame their failure on internet trolls and I don't think they should be allowed to do that.

I think buying into this is probably a step towards tighter government regulation of the Internet.

WinnyThePoo

Ipse dixit wrote: »

Do people really believe that Russia tampered with votes in the US election? Over 59% of Democrats do. Surely Irish people couldn't be as gullible as that.

Another pointless political distraction that the media and their masses are focusing on.

Unless Putin controlled people's votes or tampered with voting then I'm not sure what people actually want to do about it. Could you imagine the US crying to the UN about foreign interference in its own elections?

If were talking about a misinformation campaign then maybe they could look at their own internal misinformation campaigns rather than complaining about what dirty secrets Russia is unconvering on US politicans.

Maybe if they all weren't so shady and corporate shills then you wouldn't have the Russians being able to influence US politics.

What should we be talking about so?