Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

manual_man

Chips Lovell wrote: »

At this stage, Russian interference is indisputable. Read the first 50 pages of the Mueller report for a summary. If you want to go deeper, read:

1. The December 2016 joint analysis of the FBI and Department of Homeland Security on Russian interference in the 2016 election.
2. The February 2018 indictment of three Russian organisations and 13 named individuals for their involvement in a propaganda campaign atempting to influence public opinion during the election campaign.
2. The July 2018 indictment of 12 named Russian intelligence agents for their role in interfering in the election campaign.

I didn't ask for claims of wrongdoing. I asked for the proof.

Igotadose

manual_man wrote: »

I didn't ask for claims of wrongdoing. I asked for the proof.

Proof's not established till the trials(s). Soon as the folks indicted go on trial, the proof'll come out.

Asking for proof is disingenuous before then. There's suspicion enough to hand out indictments.

manual_man

Igotadose wrote: »

Proof's not established till the trials(s). Soon as the folks indicted go on trial, the proof'll come out.

Asking for proof is disingenuous before then. There's suspicion enough to hand out indictments.

And as I'm sure you're aware, none of those indicted are ever likely to go to trial.

So release the evidence. Expose the wrongdoing.

listermint

manual_man wrote: »

And as I'm sure you're aware, none of those indicted are ever likely to go to trial.

So release the evidence. Expose the wrongdoing.

There is ample evidence of Russian involvement in Elections US and UK. You know this, I know this. Im not bothering wasting my time pulling all the evidence out for you frankly. Because i know by the way you posed the response to me. that it wouldnt matter what i gave you. you will already have a rebuttal preformed predetermined.

I have a friend like this, he watches RT all day long he actually has a Russian girlfriend strangely enough but he is, lets but it mildly a tad 'susceptible' to cohersion. He spends his days when not in work ranting to people on facebook about how Putin is a great leader and forwarding on propaganda.

I dont bother engaging with him anymore its pointless. (hes a dub too)

BloodBath

This thread belongs in the conspiracy theory forum at this stage.

Chips Lovell

manual_man wrote: »

I didn't ask for claims of wrongdoing. I asked for the proof.

If you've read all of the above and still aren't convinced of Russian interference, I'm not sure any additional evidence will change your mind.

Chips Lovell

listermint wrote: »

There is ample evidence of Russian involvement in Elections US and UK.

In the US, yes, it's beyond doubt. In the UK, the evidence is very thin. If there was, it was certainly nothing on the scale of what they attempted in the US.

Igotadose

manual_man wrote: »

And as I'm sure you're aware, none of those indicted are ever likely to go to trial.

So release the evidence. Expose the wrongdoing.

But then, you'd be on about it only being evidence, not yet proven in a court of law.

And there's been plenty of evidence in the public discourse so far, including the conclusions of the intelligence professionals, who are a lot smarter than us about this.

BloodBath

Igotadose wrote: »

But then, you'd be on about it only being evidence, not yet proven in a court of law.

And there's been plenty of evidence in the public discourse so far, including the conclusions of the intelligence professionals, who are a lot smarter than us about this.

Oh yes the same intelligence agencies who told us Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and were harbouring and training Al Queda. So reliable...

Conclusions of intelligence agencies are not evidence.

manual_man

Chips Lovell wrote: »

If you've read all of the above and still aren't convinced of Russian interference, I'm not sure any additional evidence will change your mind.

Claims of wrongdoing and actual evidence are not the same thing. I'm astonished anyone can try to convince themselves otherwise.

I take the claims seriously. But I hold truth to a high standard. I don't take claims as fact. I demand evidence. And all truth-loving people do likewise.

amandstu

Chips Lovell wrote: »

If you've read all of the above and still aren't convinced of Russian interference, I'm not sure any additional evidence will change your mind.

Would it not be strange if the Russians had not interfered with the US and other elections?

After all we know their history from the Cold War (which Putin was deeply involved in) and we can also reason that they have legitimate reasons to be paranoid and fearful of isolation.

It seems to me that the new technology simply landed in their lap and it would have been harder for them to resist its use than to actually use it.

They apparently see themselves as adversaries to the EU ,Europe and the US .
Their behaviour is to be expected.

What is less expected is that there should be uncertainty as to the response from the US administration and insinuations by some here that "the Russians didn't do it"

BloodBath

amandstu wrote: »

Would it not be strange if the Russians had not interfered with the US and other elections?

After all we know their history from the Cold War (which Putin was deeply involved in) and we can also reason that they have legitimate reasons to be paranoid and fearful of isolation.

It seems to me that the new technology simply landed in their lap and it would have been harder for them to resist its use than to actually use it.

They apparently see themselves as adversaries to the EU ,Europe and the US .
Their behaviour is to be expected.

What is less expected is that there should be uncertainty as to the response from the US administration and insinuations by some here that "the Russians didn't do it"

Do you really buy into all this anti Russian propaganda. The US have meddled in far more elections and orchestrated more coups than every other country in the world combined while spying on and meddling with their supposed allies and starting multiple illegal wars.

While they encircle Russia with weapons of mass destruction and try to destroy their economy with sanctions.

The Russians are the bad guys though right?

Meanwhile you all get caught up in this circus instead of arguing over the bigger long term picture.

Chips Lovell

amandstu wrote: »

Would it not be strange if the Russians had not interfered with the US and other elections?

After all we know their history from the Cold War (which Putin was deeply involved in) and we can also reason that they have legitimate reasons to be paranoid and fearful of isolation.

It seems to me that the new technology simply landed in their lap and it would have been harder for them to resist its use than to actually use it.

I don't think it's a given that they would do it because they could do it. Interference or, more correctly, interference on this scale (because its safe to assume there's always going to be some attempts at meddling), was likely only undertaken because they judged the conditions to be right for it. There was fertile ground there, an audience for disinformation, leaks etc.

A more "normal" election year, the impact may have been much lower and thus not worth it. And there is a price for doing this kind of thing. Aside from the diplomatic blowblack, a bunch of GRU agents now have their names (and, in some cases, faces) plastered all over the internet. I'm sure the GRU bosses aren't too happy about the whole thing since it resulted in a glare of publicity on their entire set-up.

listermint

Chips Lovell wrote: »

In the US, yes, it's beyond doubt. In the UK, the evidence is very thin. If there was, it was certainly nothing on the scale of what they attempted in the US.

That's because brexit was a training ground for the US elections and they pulled it off.

listermint

BloodBath wrote: »

Do you really buy into all this anti Russian propaganda. The US have meddled in far more elections and orchestrated more coups than every other country in the world combined while spying on and meddling with their supposed allies and starting multiple illegal wars.

While they encircle Russia with weapons of mass destruction and try to destroy their economy with sanctions.

The Russians are the bad guys though right?

Meanwhile you all get caught up in this circus instead of arguing over the bigger long term picture.

They are both bad.

Can that not also be true. In your world ?


... No ?

BloodBath

listermint wrote: »

They are both bad.

Can that not also be true. In your world ?


... No ?

All super powers are dangerous. You can add China to the list. The US since WW2 though are by far the biggest offenders.

We almost went to WW3 over the Russians trying to install a missile base in Cuba. Meanwhile the US has dozens of them surrounding Russia.

Is it really wise to back them into a corner like this? Putin has addressed this topic multiple times. It's a dangerous game.

Chips Lovell

listermint wrote: »

That's because brexit was a training ground for the US elections and they pulled it off.

I'd have to disagree with that. The operations directed at the U.S. were underway long before the Brexit referendum.

There was some propaganda pushed out immediately before and after the Brexit referendum, but it was quite small scale compared to what was going on in the U.S.

The evidence really suggests that the U.S. was always the main focus and Brexit was low down on the list of priorities.

amandstu

BloodBath wrote: »

The Russians are the bad guys though right?
.

Of course not.. they do have their share of them though and in case you hadn't noticed they don't have our interests foremost.

The charge is not so much that the Russians interfered in the US elections but that a foreign state did so (it being Russia did make it worse ,obviously)

listermint

Chips Lovell wrote: »

I'd have to disagree with that. The operations directed at the U.S. were underway long before the Brexit referendum.

There was some propaganda pushed out immediately before and after the Brexit referendum, but it was quite small scale compared to what was going on in the U.S.

The evidence really suggests that the U.S. was always the main focus and Brexit was low down on the list of priorities.

Id have to disagree with you also. Brexit was a key training ground for the operational aspect of disinformation. And dissemination of it to willing eyes.

That and Ukraine were training grounds for this. And the UK elections was the first real feedback loop of large scale operations.

If you think the pulling apart of EU relations isnt a main focus, then my friend. You need to open those eyes.

listermint

BloodBath wrote: »

All super powers are dangerous. You can add China to the list. The US since WW2 though are by far the biggest offenders.

We almost went to WW3 over the Russians trying to install a missile base in Cuba. Meanwhile the US has dozens of them surrounding Russia.

Is it really wise to back them into a corner like this? Putin has addressed this topic multiple times. It's a dangerous game.

Is that a threat ?

We, the EU should hold Russian to account for all its actions, Yes of course we should.

BloodBath

It's not a threat. If you think it's smart to back a powerful nuclear super power into a corner who has made every effort to be reasonable then I don't know what to say.

Not gonna derail the thread anymore though. Continue with your rant.

Chips Lovell

listermint wrote: »

Id have to disagree with you also. Brexit was a key training ground for the operational aspect of disinformation. And dissemination of it to willing eyes.

Again, there isn't really any evidence to support that contention. Twitter released the entire archive of Internet Research Agency Tweets, going back to 2009. There's around 10 million tweets in there. You can see that the disinformation campaign directed at the U.S. was up and running long before the Brexit referendum. The Brexit-related stuff was a tiny drop in the ocean compared to what was directed at the U.S. and only lasted a few days.

FrostyJack

manual_man wrote: »

Claims of wrongdoing and actual evidence are not the same thing. I'm astonished anyone can try to convince themselves otherwise.

I take the claims seriously. But I hold truth to a high standard. I don't take claims as fact. I demand evidence. And all truth-loving people do likewise.

Is Donald Trump president of the United States? What is your evidence for that? Have you sat in the Oval Office and seen him work? How do you know he isn't just an actor or really good cgi? What level of evidence took you to believe he is president? What level of evidence do you require that the Russians interfered? A video of Putin ordering a hacker to or standing in a bot factory giving a speech? The video could be fabricated. What if your best friend said he was, your best friend could have been threatened or paid off. How do you believe anything you don't see?

There is literally tons of evidence if you actually look, but will not fit the high standard you require. Things like coding traced to Fancy Bear been previously used by the GRU. Thousands of facebook posts from groups set up to create confusion and apathy among voters. Millions of interactions. Ads bought by Kremlin connected businesses. The disinformation didn't start with the Ukraine it can be seen back as far a the invasion of Georgia, if not before that. It is the same modus operandi used around the World anywhere Putin has an interest, especially in his own country.

listermint

Chips Lovell wrote: »

Again, there isn't really any evidence to support that contention. Twitter released the entire archive of Internet Research Agency Tweets, going back to 2009. There's around 10 million tweets in there. You can see that the disinformation campaign directed at the U.S. was up and running long before the Brexit referendum. The Brexit-related stuff was a tiny drop in the ocean compared to what was directed at the U.S. and only lasted a few days.

Have any evidence to back up this !?


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/10/russian-influence-brexit-vote-detailed-us-senate-report

In addition, the senators noted that research conducted by a joint team of experts from the University of California at Berkeley and Swansea University reportedly identified 150,000 Twitter accounts with various Russian ties that disseminated messages about Brexit.

The report also points to the vast flow of Russian money into the UK, including the London property market. It records how the Metropolitan police noted that a total value of £180m in properties in the UK had been put under investigation as possibly purchased with corrupt proceeds by secretive offshore companies.

Chips Lovell

listermint wrote: »

Have any evidence to back up this !?

I linked to the archive, which is publicly available.

Others who've looked at it came to the same conclusion:

“

On June 23, 2016, as Britain held its Brexit referendum, the troll farm’s accounts posted #ReasonsToLeaveEU 1,102 times, a mixture of authored tweets and retweets. They were apparently spearheaded by @WorldOfHashtags, which posted, ‘Everybody is obsessed with #EUref today. So let’s play #\ReasonsToLeaveEU.’

“This appears to have been an attempt, on voting day, to make a pro-leave hashtag trend. However, it should not be taken as a larger Russian attempt to interfere in Brexit. The Russian troll farm only posted on #VoteLeave 35 times in its career and ‘Brexit’ 4,437 times and mostly after the vote, suggesting that there was no concerted campaign around the issue.”

listermint

Chips Lovell wrote: »

I linked to the archive, which is publicly available.

Others who've looked at it came to the same conclusion:

“

Yet there are many other sources which say different. I gave you one such

Chips Lovell

listermint wrote: »

Yet there are many other sources which say different. I gave you one such

What you linked to pre-dated the release of the data and cited the highest estimate of Russia-linked accounts. As summarized in the article it linked to citing that figure:

According to researchers from five different universities, then, the scale of Russian interference was somewhere between 50 and 150,000 accounts.

everlast75

https://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/traffic.megaphone.fm/SLT1719223142.mp3

If you don't have time to read the SC executive summaries, listen to someone read them to you. Handy.

Brian?

Yesterday Trump was saying the Mueller report completely exonerated him.

Today it’s “The crazy Mueller report, written by 18 Trump hating Democrats”.

Which is it? Leaving aside that Bob Mueller is a life long Republican.

Cody montana

Brian? wrote: »

Yesterday Trump was saying the Mueller report completely exonerated him.

Today it’s “The crazy Mueller report, written by 18 Trump hating Democrats”.

Which is it? Leaving aside that Bob Mueller is a life long Republican.

It’s whatever his deluded fans will believe.