What if it was not the Russians?

Since everyone on this site loves polls, take a gander at this.

A Yahoo Finance/SurveyMonkey poll released Tuesday finds that 11 percent of Republican or GOP-leaning Americans surveyed said it is "appropriate" for Russia to try to help Republicans, while 29 percent said it's "not appropriate, but wouldn't be a big deal."
...
On the Democratic side, 14 percent of Democrats said it either would be appropriate or "wouldn't be a big deal" for Russia to intervene on behalf of Democrats.
Click to expand...

The 40% of Republicans and 14% of Democrats are some unpatriotic mofos. This "I don't care as long as my side wins" agenda is sickening.
 
The 40% of Republicans and 14% of Democrats are some unpatriotic mofos. This "I don't care as long as my side wins" agenda is sickening.
Click to expand...

I am not pro Trump, but I really do not see people posting things on facebook for any side as a big deal. Welcome to the internet. Plenty of Americans generate fake BS on their own. If the American government wants to post things on facebook directed at another country, I do not see why not. I question whether it really has an impact on anything.

Today it just sounds like we are going “the russians are posting things on facebook we dont like and now we are offended.” We are really coming off as snowflakes to the rest of the world.
 
Htown77 said:
I am not pro Trump, but I really do not see people posting things on facebook for any side as a big deal. Welcome to the internet. Plenty of Americans generate fake BS on their own. If the American government wants to post things on facebook directed at another country, I do not see why not. I question whether it really has an impact on anything.

Today it just sounds like we are going “the russians are posting things on facebook we dont like and now we are offended.” We are really coming off as snowflakes to the rest of the world.
Click to expand...

Misinformation campaigns have always been in existence. It doesn't mean we shouldn't limit their effectiveness as a community. I think this Russia story simply highlighted our collective naivete towards social media use. Hopefully we're all a little bit smarter. Facebook/Twitter are a day late and a dollar short in trying manage their platforms.
 
Opening statements in Paul Manafort's case today. Manafort's lawyers point the finger at Gates and the Oligarchs. Apparently they required him to use 30 secret bank accounts and it Gates embezzled $$$$. Manafort simply trusted Gates to "do what's right". There was no intention to mislead the IRS but rather the Ukranian Oligarchs forced him to do business that way.
 
Misinformation campaigns have always been in existence. It doesn't mean we shouldn't limit their effectiveness as a community. I think this Russia story simply highlighted our collective naivete towards social media use. Hopefully we're all a little bit smarter. Facebook/Twitter are a day late and a dollar short in trying manage their platforms.
Click to expand...

I actually do agree with all of this. I am perfectly okay with facebook and twitter cutting the BS. I just do not agree with Lindsay Graham and others getting so worked up about it. We blasted radio free europe for years and I know we have like a free cuban radio and they do not/did not affect anything. The people that fall/fell for the russian stuff already thought that way beforehand.
 
Last edited:
Seattle Husker said:
Hopefully we're all a little bit smarter. Facebook/Twitter are a day late and a dollar short in trying manage their platforms.
Click to expand...

What does it mean to "manage their platforms?" I think that defining that is more important than the misinformation anybody would put out.
 
Mr. Deez said:
What does it mean to "manage their platforms?" I think that defining that is more important than the misinformation anybody would put out.
Click to expand...

Governance. Authentication of accounts and controls in the paid ads platforms were both afterthoughts as the markets were measuring them solely by account growth and profitability. In fact, that model of rewarding them actually made it less likely they'd care about real vs. bot accounts or care who was giving them $$$. Only now are these companies realize the reckless error of their ways albeit they still haven't been punished greatly, IMHO.
 
The pages created about 30 events, some of which were highly attended, according to Facebook RSVPs.
Click to expand...

:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

Don't forget "people familiar with the situation."

And of course, these were people who would have voted for Hillary if not for the fake ads, which would make this the absolute cheapest political campaign in the history of the universe. If only the U.S. candidates had thought to put out messaging on social media... maybe they'll try that next time since it was so effective.
 
Seattle Husker said:
Governance. Authentication of accounts and controls in the paid ads platforms were both afterthoughts as the markets were measuring them solely by account growth and profitability. In fact, that model of rewarding them actually made it less likely they'd care about real vs. bot accounts or care who was giving them $$$. Only now are these companies realize the reckless error of their ways albeit they still haven't been punished greatly, IMHO.
Click to expand...

I don't think there'd be a lot of opposition to these companies doing what you suggest. The problem is that I don't think there is universal agreement on what they should be doing. Plenty want social media platforms to restrict content or engage in "fact" checking.
 
Mr. Deez said:
I don't think there'd be a lot of opposition to these companies doing what you suggest. The problem is that I don't think there is universal agreement on what they should be doing. Plenty want social media platforms to restrict content or engage in "fact" checking.
Click to expand...

Understood. There are no standards leaving these companies to come up with their own, usually in response to PR/User feedback.
 
I do have one nuance to add to this. If, for example, in Russia posting their BS, a crazy person mass shooter pops off and after looking into it, the shooter appears to have been incited by Russia or any other country’s facebook BS.... THAT might merit retaliation.

I do not think the real threat is any of this affecting elections. I think the real threat of divisive posts from foreign sources is potentially inciting a crazy person to mass shoot. Note the people who actually read the Russian BS are the fringes on all sides where the crazos tend to reside. That is a cause for concern.
 
Htown77 said:
I do have one nuance to add to this. If, for example, in Russia posting their BS, a crazy person mass shooter pops off and after looking into it, the shooter appears to have been incited by Russia or any other country’s facebook BS.... THAT might merit retaliation.

I do not think the real threat is any of this affecting elections. I think the real threat of divisive posts from foreign sources is potentially inciting a crazy person to mass shoot. Note the people who actually read the Russian BS are the fringes on all sides where the crazos tend to reside. That is a cause for concern.
Click to expand...


Russia is certainly trying to nibble at the extremes to fan the flames of divisiveness. This most recent example was their attempt to organize a counter-protest to a White Nationalist march in D.C. They of course reached out to antifa like organizations. One might surmise they are hoping to provoke violent encounters between extremist organizations. That allows left/right to pick their side and say "see what the other side did?"
 
Russia is certainly trying to nibble at the extremes to fan the flames of divisiveness. This most recent example was their attempt to organize a counter-protest to a White Nationalist march in D.C. They of course reached out to antifa like organizations. One might surmise they are hoping to provoke violent encounters betweenextremist organizations. That allowsleft/right to pick their side and say "see what the other side did?"
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
Horn6721 said:
from zero hedge
"
The former intelligence analyst, British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, and chancellor of the University of Dundee, Craig Murray, wrote yesterday:



As Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from the Russians. As I have explained countless times, they are not hacks, they are insider leaks – there is a major difference between the two.



***



I know who leaked them. I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.

In other words, Murray – a close friend of Julian Assange – says he knows for a fact that there were no hacks at all … instead, an American insider leaked the information to Wikileaks.

Today, Murray writes:



If you set up the super surveillance state, hoovering up all the internet traffic of pretty well everybody, that is not just going to affect the ordinary people whom the elite despise. There is also going to be an awful lot of traffic intercepted from sleazy members of the elite connected to even the most senior politicians, revealing all their corruption and idiosyncracies. From people like John Podesta, to take an entirely random example. And once the super surveillance state has intercepted and stored all that highly incriminating material, you never know if some decent human being, some genuine patriot, from within the security services is going to feel compelled to turn whistleblower.



Than they might turn for help to, to take another entirely random example, Julian Assange.

This confirms what the NSA executive who created the agency’s mass surveillance program for digital information, who served as the senior technical director within the agency, who managed six thousand NSA employees, the 36-year NSA veteran widely regarded as a “legend” within the agency and the NSA’s best-ever analyst and code-breaker, who mapped out the Soviet command-and-control structure before anyone else knew how, and so predicted Soviet invasions before they happened (“in the 1970s, he decrypted the Soviet Union’s command system, which provided the US and its allies with real-time surveillance of all Soviet troop movements and Russian atomic weapons”) – previously said: the leaker was from U.S. intelligence services. And see this.

And Murray confirmed to Washington's Blog by email that Binney "was on the mark." And see this.

In other words, Russia did not hack the Democratic party emails. Instead, an American intelligence whistleblower leaked them.

It wouldn't be the first time.

Update: David Swanson interviewed Murray today, and obtained additional information. Specifically, Murray told Swanson that: (1) there were two American leakers ... one for the emails of the Democratic National Committee and one for the emails of top Clinton aide John Podesta; (2) Murray met one of those leakers; and (3) both leakers are American insiders with the NSA and/or the DNC, with no known connections to Russia.

And see this.

Postscript: As we've pointed out for years, the NSA is collecting all digital communications, including emails, in America.

The NSA then shares this information with numerous other agencies, including the FBI, DEA, etc.

We've noted that the NSA’s big data collection itself creates an easy mark for hackers. Remember, the Pentagon itself sees the collection of “big data” as a “national security threat” … but the NSA is the biggest data collector on the planet, and thus provides a tempting mother lode of information for foreign hackers."
more at http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...-democratic-email-leaker-confirms-he-was-amer

Here is a source willing to be named. Add this to the FBI reporting they are not sure the breach was done by Russians.
Of course we still should investigate whether Russia or any other country has found ways into our systems But what if it was not the Russians who leaked the docs after all?
Click to expand...

Just looked back at the post that started this thread. It was a propaganda piece. We now know that Craig Murray is close personal friends with Assange and the most of this article is completely false.

Given that Zerohedge is linked here generally to reinforce Russia's (read: Musburger) and the extreme right's (read: Joe Fan) narrative, what are the chances that it's a Russian propaganda site?

Looking back it's remarkable how aligned Russia's narrative was to the one pushed by Trumpsters.
 
Seattle Husker said:
Just looked back at the post that started this thread. It was a propaganda piece. We now know that Craig Murray is close personal friends with Assange and the most of this article is completely false.

Given that Zerohedge is linked here generally to reinforce Russia's (read: Musburger) and the extreme right's (read: Joe Fan) narrative, what are the chances that it's a Russian propaganda site?

Looking back it's remarkable how aligned Russia's narrative was to the one pushed by Trumpsters.
Click to expand...

SH,

Fair warning, if Mueller loses this case, you will never hear the end of this as long as Mueller or Russian collusion is in the news:

https://www.bloombergquint.com/poli...t-were-those-his-offshore-accounts#gs.P5W5i=A
 
mchammer said:
SH,

Fair warning, if Mueller loses this case, you will never hear the end of this as long as Mueller or Russian collusion is in the news:

https://www.bloombergquint.com/poli...t-were-those-his-offshore-accounts#gs.P5W5i=A
Click to expand...

Why? Is Manafort the beginning and end of Russian interference?

Bank fraud is a very difficult case to prosecute because most jurors cant begin to understand the legal nuances.

Manafort is dirty as a $3 bill but he's a sideshow to what thrust of the Mueller investigation. Unless Mueller's team suddenly changes the charges this is purely about justice and less about interference. That last point hasn't been raised yet to my knowledge.
 
Seattle Husker said:
Why? Is Manafort the beginning and end of Russian interference?

Bank fraud is a very difficult case to prosecute because most jurors cant begin to understand the legal nuances.

Manafort is dirty as a $3 bill but he's a sideshow to what thrust of the Mueller investigation. Unless Mueller's team suddenly changes the charges this is purely about justice and less about interference. That last point hasn't been raised yet to my knowledge.
Click to expand...
It goes to the heart of his decision making, which is close to ruinous already.
 
A98CC523-9580-48A7-8DB9-BB4CFDE5F0DD.jpeg
 
Every lawyer read this thread. Judge makes special counsel cry in court. Special counsel is arguing with the judge. Gov witness is weasel. Mueller trial is a ******* disaster.

 
I will provide my opinion on Mueller if not known: he is dumber than a box of nails who only knows how to abuse gov power. Doing the latter is evidence of the former. Smart people can achieve their goals without abusing power.
 



Disaster. I’m forecasting guilty on a few minimal charges and 3-6 months in jail, which mostly has been served already.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-HOGS *
Sat, Nov 16 • 11:00 AM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top