Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, February 13, 2018

President Donald Trump still isn't buying that Russia interfered in the 2016 election. Even as his intelligence chiefs unanimously told a Senate panel Tuesday that Russia meddled in 2016 and is planning to do so again in 2018, three sources familiar with the President's thinking say he remains unconvinced that Russia interfered in the presidential election.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

While this issue is separate from the question of whether Trump campaign officials colluded with Russian officials, to Trump the issues are interwoven, the sources say. He views the notion that Russia meddled in the election as an argument that he had help to win, and that he didn't win the election on his own.

Trump's view contradicts his intelligence chiefs, including Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, CIA Director Mike Pompeo and FBI Director Chris Wray, who all testified -- again -- on Tuesday that they supported the intelligence community's January 2017 assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 election.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Yeah, that was the best $100,000 the Russians ever spent. Well, that and infiltrating Pokemon. And the .71 cents they spent fighting Brexit.

But hey, it's CNN. When the chief of DHS told congress back in October that Russia never hacked US voting machines at all, and the whole election meddling thing was a lie, only C-SPAN covered it. Not a single corporate news outlet mentioned it at all. All of the conspiracy lies Hillary set in motion are actually starting to become very, very clear now.

#1 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2018-02-13 07:01 PM | Reply

US Intel Agencies werk for CNN?

Who knew? Did Alex Jones tell you that?

Rodents in Denial is funny stuff.

#2 | Posted by Corky at 2018-02-13 07:02 PM | Reply

#1 - I don't know of anyone that has alleged the Russians hacked a US voting machine. Why the ridiculous conflation of what is known, what the Russians have done, and this silly hacking voting machines?

I've known that from the beginning, and no one on any reputable News has said otherwise.

You do live in a fantasy world of straw man arguments. The only question is whether you're aware of that or not...

#3 | Posted by YAV at 2018-02-13 07:07 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

DHS pushes back on NBC, 'no evidence' Russians 'manipulated' elections

www.washingtonexaminer.com

#4 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2018-02-13 07:13 PM | Reply

Trump has not instructed the FBI to prevent Russia from interfering in the 2018 elections.
thehill.com

Congress should remove Trump from office for his failure to defend America from foreign enemies.

#5 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2018-02-13 07:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

- The only question is whether you're aware of that or not...

He knows; his deception is intentional.

#6 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-02-13 07:53 PM | Reply

#4 - Despite what the moony-times says, and the positioning of the overhyped statement from Jeanette Manfra, perhaps you should read the NBC story in context and then make your judgement?

"The U.S. official in charge of protecting American elections from hacking says the Russians successfully penetrated the voter registration rolls of several U.S. states prior to the 2016 presidential election." - that's the paragraph that has the Moony-times, and Ms. Manfra upset. However keep reading:

"Jeanette Manfra, the head of cybersecurity at the Department of Homeland Security, ... "We saw a targeting of 21 states and an exceptionally small number of them were actually successfully penetrated."

"There is no evidence that any of the registration rolls were altered in any fashion, according to U.S. officials."

www.nbcnews.com

What got her all upset? They quoted her.

"A video preview of the NBC interview showed Manfra being asked specifically about states' voter registration systems being targeted. Manfra responded with a line that was similar to what the DHS has been saying for many months: "We saw a targeting of 21 states and an exceptionally small number of them were actually successfully penetrated."

And here she is mischaracterizing the NBC report (from your link):

"NBC News continues to falsely report my recent comments on attempted election hacking."

She's upset that NBC brought it up again, but it's the same story NBC has been publishing since the DHS testified before Senate Intelligence Committee, and the article accurately reports what DHS said, and quotes her, no less.

In short, there's no "there" there in this allegation that NBC said anything about the election being hacked. In fact, read the article they put out and it's balanced and accurately quotes Manfra.

#7 | Posted by YAV at 2018-02-13 08:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Oh - and I meant to do this as well - from DHS (link at the end):

"As I said eight months ago, a number of states were the target of Russian government cyber actors seeking vulnerabilities and access to U.S. election infrastructure. In the majority of cases, only preparatory activity like scanning was observed, while in a small number of cases, actors were able to access the system but we have no evidence votes were changed or otherwise impacted."

www.dhs.gov

So NBC said "exceptionally small number" and DHS says "small number."

So perhaps NBC went overboard with the "exceptionally small" characterization?

#8 | Posted by YAV at 2018-02-13 08:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Molly McKew @MollyMcKew

DNI Coats just said every single NATO nation believes Russia is trying to undermine their elections and democracies in exactly the same ways.

Coats, Pompeo, Rogers all say Russia has shown activity and intention to interfere with 2018 US elex.

(Writer. Information warfare expert. Foreign Policy and Strategy Consultant.)

#9 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-13 08:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Our intelligence agencies are in the business of lying, and so is Putin and Trump.

#10 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-02-13 08:51 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

It's just more war propaganda for the MIC, folks. Without Russia as an enemy, we couldn't justify or defense budget, and nobody is going to go after China which is the real threat to our jobs and livelihood, because nobody is paying the corporate media to say that.

#11 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2018-02-13 09:09 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Trump trusts Putin, Hbrat trusts Trump and the Moonie Times, rofl.

#12 | Posted by Corky at 2018-02-13 09:28 PM | Reply

#12 Russia has half the GDP of California. About the same as Italy. But if you want to see it a global existential threat, even though it's no longer communist, go ahead.

#13 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2018-02-13 09:35 PM | Reply

#13

As always, I just want to know what existential threat they have on Trump.

#14 | Posted by Zed at 2018-02-13 09:43 PM | Reply

Putin has his bitch right where he wants him.

#15 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2018-02-13 09:50 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Uh huh. Lets see... Hillary believed in the 'Russian Reset'. Or 'Overcharge' or whatever. But after she stole the nomination from Bernie, she tried to stage a coup so she wouldn't go to jail for corruption and a whole bunch of other things. And she actually did co-operate with the Russians to make the fake Trump dossier. Twice. The second one she gave the FBI was produced by Sydney Blumenthal, apparently.

As I've been saying from the very beginning: a conspiracy story this bizarre actually requires at least some kind of proof. 20 months later, all roads to Russiagate lead to Hillary.

#16 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2018-02-13 09:55 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

- all roads to Russiagate lead to Hillary.

You really should lay off the helium, Ratboy. Brain cells are a terrible thing to waste.

#17 | Posted by Corky at 2018-02-13 10:01 PM | Reply

"she tried to stage a coup so she wouldn't go to jail for corruption and a whole bunch of other things"

Riiiiiiiiight. Cadres of lawyers going after her for decades, and all of them holding back all of their incriminating evidence.

"And she actually did co-operate with the Russians to make the fake Trump dossier. "

Let me guess: you've got sources....

"a conspiracy story this bizarre actually requires at least some kind of proof."

My irony meter just pegged.

#18 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-13 10:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Danforth, the information in the Trump dossier came from the Russians.

#19 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2018-02-13 10:11 PM | Reply

"the information in the Trump dossier came from the Russians."

Okay.

And much of it was corroborated, either before or after.

Do you have a point? Or any proof of your cockamamie claim of HRC cooperating with the Russians?

#20 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-13 10:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"the information in the Trump dossier came from the Russians."

Any of it true?

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-13 10:30 PM | Reply

#20 Danforth, neither the FBI or the DOJ could corroborate a single allegation in the Trump Dossier except for the one -------- about Carter Page getting on a plane at a specific date, but not why or where or anything about the plane trip. That was the only fact in the entire thing was accurate.

#22 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2018-02-13 10:46 PM | Reply

#21 Well, Carter Page did actually get on a plane.

#23 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2018-02-13 10:46 PM | Reply

You've read the Trump Dossier?
Where can I get a copy?

#24 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-13 10:47 PM | Reply

#20 Danforth.

Are you saying much of the Steele dossier has been cooberated?

#25 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-13 10:53 PM | Reply

"Meanwhile, major parts of the dossier have been verified by subsequent investigations into Russian election meddling, while others still remain a mystery."

www.newsweek.com

The Steele Dossier on Trump and Russia Is Looking More and More Real

nymag.com

#26 | Posted by Corky at 2018-02-13 11:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#24 Here you go you silly goose, compliments of Buzzfeed (which Hillary actually paid to publish it).

www.documentcloud.org

#27 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2018-02-13 11:04 PM | Reply

Meanwhile, Hbrat continues his Alex Jones impression on the Old DR.

And it's pretty good, actually.

#28 | Posted by Corky at 2018-02-13 11:06 PM | Reply

#26 Ha ha ha. That was really funny. Okay, which parts where verified? Oh. None. Except a plane ticket by Carter Page.

LOL :)

#29 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2018-02-13 11:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#20 Danforth, neither the FBI or the DOJ could corroborate a single allegation in the Trump Dossier except for the one -------- about Carter Page getting on a plane at a specific date, but not why or where or anything about the plane trip. That was the only fact in the entire thing was accurate.

#22 | POSTED BY HELIUMRAT

--------. Why do you get on here and post disreputable crap like that?

Verified Claims from the Steele Dossier

Verified: Former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page met with representatives of Russian state-owned oil giant Rosneft.
Verified: The Kremlin targeted educated youth and swing state voters during its cyber attacks in the 2016 campaign.
Verified: Trump maintains ties to rich businessmen from Azerbaijan.

POSTED BY TONYROMA AT 2018-02-09 10:58 PM | REPLY

Steele's memo alleged members of the Trump campaign were eager to hear information from Russia. A year later, Trump Jr. released emails suggesting as much, when he said, "If it's what you say I love it" to correspondence indicating that Russians had dirt on Clinton.

#30 | Posted by tonyroma at 2018-02-13 11:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

- --------. Why do you get on here and post disreputable crap like that?

It's the Trumpish thing to do for the Liar in Chief he voted for.

#31 | Posted by Corky at 2018-02-13 11:31 PM | Reply

#30 OMG it's all there! Let's see, nobody can verify Carter Page actually met with Rosneft oil people, the cyber attacks never happened at all as the chief of DHS said to Congress, and Trump has a business tie with some guy in Azerbaijan? Well, that's proof that he raped 14 women and is a pedophile like 'bored' claims and is clearly a Russian puppet.

Jesus Christ on a stick.

Look, we have bigger fish to fry, like UFO's and fluoridation. How can you people think Trump is actually a Russian agent based on a science-fiction story paid for by Hillary Clinton?

#32 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2018-02-13 11:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Newsweek LOL sure ....
mediabiasfactcheck.com

Verified: Former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page met with representatives of Russian state-owned oil giant Rosneft.
Claimed above got anything else .... Carter Page was also involved witha bust of Russian operatives, there is thinking he was an FBI agent.

Verified: The Kremlin targeted educated youth and swing state voters during its cyber attacks in the 2016 campaign.
Big deal, whats that got do with Trump?

Verified: Trump maintains ties to rich businessmen from Azerbaijan.
So Hillary did too ... I suspect running

35 pages, and all you can come up with is ..... nothing really ... nothing ...
www.documentcloud.org

PS: that link is for you Snoofy....

#33 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2018-02-13 11:41 PM | Reply

... and continues to obfuscate for... albeit ludicrously.

#34 | Posted by Corky at 2018-02-13 11:42 PM | Reply

Steele's memo alleged members of the Trump campaign were eager to hear information from Russia.

So again, the Clinton campaign, which funded the dossier, did the same.

The Clintons were working with Russians to create the dossier....

In the end when all is said and done, the Clintons paid for FISA warrant ....

Incredible.. if they weren't Democrats they would be in pretty deep trouble.....

#35 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2018-02-13 11:45 PM | Reply

ratboy is a HUGE Bill Hicks-Alex Jones Fan. He drinks the koolaid and goes back for 2nds and 3rds! Idiot Rube! LOL.

#36 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2018-02-13 11:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Andy showing his Nazi Sympathing colors. Congrats Andy, the little stubby mustache and bowl cut are you........ and those boots are to die for.....

#37 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2018-02-13 11:47 PM | Reply

#36 Aw, I think your pointy little head is cute (but not your Hitler mustache - that's just wrong). Here's a sign and special cap for you. Now go sit in a corner until you can come up with a single verifiable fact. Hell, at this point I would settle for just a non-ludicrous assertion from you people,

#38 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2018-02-14 12:00 AM | Reply

#36 Who the hell is Bill Hicks? Is that like some kind of clone the CIA made of Alex Jones or something?

#39 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2018-02-14 12:02 AM | Reply

#39

Donald Trump acts too guilty to deserve a certain person's fanatical defense of him.

#40 | Posted by Zed at 2018-02-14 06:42 AM | Reply

Donald Trump is likely the most corrupt president in American history, as well as the biggest liar.

Any and all suspicions of him are justified and, when he fires Mueller, verified.

#41 | Posted by Zed at 2018-02-14 06:46 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

The Trump defenders seem to be more than unusually rabid this morning. What's up with that? Mueller getting ready to pounce?

#42 | Posted by danni at 2018-02-14 07:59 AM | Reply

Our democracy is under attack from a foreign adversary, and the "party of national defense" is all "whatever..."? Whatever happened to "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" (FYI, voting is part of the Constitution).

Also, it's not about whether the actual voting totals were manipulated. It's about how people were influenced by Russian propaganda efforts. More people read/clicked on fake news reports planted by the Russians than real news about the election. And believed it (Pizzagate, anyone?). They didn't have to hack the machines when they could just hack the voters. And according to the Trump appointed heads of the intelligence agencies, they haven't stopped!

#43 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2018-02-14 09:38 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

It's about how people were influenced by Russian propaganda efforts - #43 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2018-02-14 09:38 AM
Do you have any citation that any voter was actually influenced by the propaganda? I don't have any evidence that opinion pieces on the BBC website influenced anyone, either, but both would be foreign propaganda aimed to influence the minds of the voters.

#44 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-02-14 10:17 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Do you have any citation that any voter was actually influenced by the propaganda?

Do you believe advertising works? I assume you think the private sector is competent (or at least more competent than "government"). Corporations and businesses spend big bucks on it. Global advertising amounted to $591 Billion last year and is expected to reach $724 Billion by 2020. www.statista.com
The Koch Brothers network spent close to $1 Billion to influence the outcome of the 2016 election and are planning to spend hundreds of $Millions in the 2018 elections.

You should contact all these folks and let them know that there are no citations that show that consumers are "actually influenced" by their propaganda. Look at all the money they're wasting.

#45 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2018-02-14 10:30 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Also, it is much easier to influence people if you reinforce their biases and prejudices.

#46 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2018-02-14 10:31 AM | Reply

And all our trumpkins believe only Small hand. So they do not trust CIA/FBI/ARMY... just Small hand.... Lovely trumpkins...Until Small hand is on top, russia can play anything without being blamed. As our Small hand will take care

#47 | Posted by material07310 at 2018-02-14 10:57 AM | Reply

#45 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2018-02-14 10:30 AM
That was a lot of posting to say 'No'.
Your claim was 'It's about how people were influenced by Russian propaganda efforts ' with no evidence of influence or quantifiable effect. Huh.

#48 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-02-14 11:17 AM | Reply

Also, it is much easier to influence people if you reinforce their biases and prejudices. - #46 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2018-02-14 10:31 AM
I believe that. A better question would be 'how are we going to help the
educated youth and swing state voters to be less biased and prejudiced'?

#49 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-02-14 11:23 AM | Reply

Belief in russian election Interferences holds as much water as belief that Seth Rich was randomly mugged/murdered and not offed for leaking DNC emails to wikileeks.

#50 | Posted by mutant at 2018-02-14 12:01 PM | Reply

Do you have any citation that any voter was actually influenced by the propaganda?

Do you have any citation that they were not?

1. We do know that propaganda works. Do you agree?

if yes then go to 2.

if no then go to end

2.We know that the Russian propaganda group called Internet Research Agency placed 3,000 ads, to 470 accounts.

do you agree?

if yes then go to 3.

if no then go to end

3. We know that the content posted by just six of the 470 fake accounts that Facebook has pinpointed may have been shared 340 million times.

do you agree?

if yes then go to 4.

if no then go to end

4. We know that those same posts received roughly 19.1 million interactions in the form of people clicking the "like" or "share" buttons.

do you agree?

if yes then go to 5.

if no then go to end

5. We know that if someone clicks "like" or "share" they have been "influenced" by a post.

do you agree?

if yes then go to 6.

if no go then to end.

6. We know that fewer than 80,000 votes cost Hillary Clinton the election.

do you agree?

if yes then go to 7.

if no go then to end.

7. If you made it this far then you must agree that the election was "influenced" by Russian Propaganda.

Do you agree?

If yes then you are obviously a reasonable person with at least half a brain.

If no then you are obviously a Deplorable Trump supporter and would still support him even if humped a porn star and laundered millions thru Russian oligarchs and lied to you 4 times a day.

end

#51 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-02-14 01:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

Give. It. Up. Or. Show. Real. Proof. Not. Poof.

This is no winning strategy. It is futile at this point and getting as stale as calling bill a cheating womanizing president.

Heck even i voted d and am not perpetually butthurt about not getting "my turn"... Pendulums swing.

But those meddling teenagers always foil the criminals. Zoinks

#52 | Posted by mutant at 2018-02-14 01:50 PM | Reply

If the Russians affected the last election Dems fault.
If they affect the next election Repubs fault.
I think they really are attacking the stibility of our country and using our own extremes against us.

#53 | Posted by graph1 at 2018-02-14 02:15 PM | Reply

If the Russians affected the last election Dems fault.
If they affect the next election Repubs fault.

What? Why? This is clearly a bipartisan issue. What makes you think they haven't been affecting previous elections under the radar?

Intelligence agencies are claiming that they have, or least have attempted. This is bipartisan and historical in nature. The only reason this is as big of a deal now is because of the alleged Trump ties to Russia (i.e., Russia's own POTUS candidate, to which, for the record, I do not assign to).

#54 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-02-14 02:42 PM | Reply

If the Russians affected the last election Dems fault.
If they affect the next election Repubs fault.
I think they really are attacking the stibility of our country and using our own extremes against us.

#53 | POSTED BY GRAPH1

2/3; D-

#55 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-02-14 03:08 PM | Reply

5. We know that if someone clicks "like" or "share" they have been "influenced" by a post. - #51 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-02-14 01:01 PM
You lost your chain when you tried to equate 'influenced' to click a like button and 'influenced' to change their vote in the voting booth. That is a logical fallacy.
end

#56 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-02-14 05:35 PM | Reply

Your claim was 'It's about how people were influenced by Russian propaganda efforts ' with no evidence of influence or quantifiable effect. Huh.

#48 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

Give. It. Up. Or. Show. Real. Proof. Not. Poof.

#52 | POSTED BY MUTANT

So if they don't show you top secret proof then they're lying?

Do we have to prove to you guys that the sky is blue? What causes you to trust anything that comes out of Trump's mouth when the man is evidently incapable of telling the truth about ANYTHING!

I guess if our intelligence services tell us that "whoever" is "planning to attack inside the US" as in 9/11, you'll ignore them like Bush did. And then it will be the Democrats fault, right?

#57 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2018-02-14 09:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If you don't trust the government, and you don't trust the media, what do you trust for information? I hope it's not Trump, because then you would be pathetic suckers.

#58 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2018-02-14 09:50 PM | Reply

From HeRat, "she tried to stage a coup so she wouldn't go to jail for corruption and a whole bunch of other things."

Everything else you said is valid. But, this is so bizarre it warrants some link, documentation or something. It sounds utterly ridiculous. No one has any intention of indicting a former Secretary of State, or President, no matter how many illegal wars they stage or people they kill. Everyone in DC and the mass media pretends we have nothing but the purest of intentions ALL the time. Nothing could be further from the truth.

#59 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-02-15 09:19 AM | Reply

#57 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2018-02-14 09:31 PM
There is no national security implications that would classify evidence of someone altering their voting preference based on facebook posts.
I say that as someone who has secret clearance currently.
Nothing I've said requires any belief in anything that Trump has said or claims. (Weak Strawman, btw)
I also never claimed that there was not an effort to manipulate our election. You YOURSELF claimed '(I)t's not about whether the actual voting totals were manipulated.It's about how people were influenced'. So, it is all about something that you don't know happened, haven't seen any evidence of it happening, and don't have any quantifiable justification for any concern over it. And that thing you have no evidence for is more important than the evidence of no votes being manipulated.
There is no logic in your posting. It doesn't make sense. It would be equally justified to claim that the sky is blue influenced the election. At this moment, you have provided equal proof of each, yet you seem to be experiencing extreme angst over only 1 of them.
Well, to be fair, I can provide proof that the sky is blue.

#60 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-02-15 09:48 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

5. We know that if someone clicks "like" or "share" they have been "influenced" by a post. - #51 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-02-14 01:01 PM
You lost your chain when you tried to equate 'influenced' to click a like button and 'influenced' to change their vote in the voting booth. That is a logical fallacy.
end

#56 | Posted by Avigdore

I may have lost you because that is where the meat is and you cannot admit that is true or your whole premise falls apart.

So let's look closer at that. If you raise your finger and click "like" on a post has it "influenced" you? Why, yes, of course, it has. It "influenced" you to click "like". Which means you liked what you read. If it "influences" you to click "share" now you are attempting to "influence" others. If you believe that the post (Russian propaganda) is true enough to share it with others then it has "influenced" the way you think and you wish others to think the same thing...(which is how propaganda works) which is why it is called propaganda.

prop·a·gan·da
ˌpräpəˈɡandə/
derogatory
information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

If your political point of view has been "influenced" do you really think that it will not "influence" the way you vote?

And I don't have to be standing in the voting booth next to you to know this is true.

#61 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-02-15 12:33 PM | Reply

If your political point of view has been "influenced" do you really think that it will not "influence" the way you vote?
And I don't have to be standing in the voting booth next to you to know this is true.
#61 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-02-15 12:33 PM

Firstly, I don't think that any reasonable person changes their voting plan based on Russian created propaganda which was less than 1% of the total propaganda.
Unfortunately, much of America isn't reasonable, so here's the rest of the story:
If you aren't concerned that Russian propaganda had a measurable effect on the voters behavior - notably their vote, then what are you worried about?
If someone rabidly pro-Trump click like on a Russia created pro-Trump or anti-Clinton ad, then they propaganda had no influence on their vote.
If more people showed up to the polls due to seeing propaganda of any sort, I'm not going to begrudge any pro-democracy 'influence' even if 'my guy' lost.
If fewer people showed up to the polls due to the propaganda, that would be an effect illustrating 'influence'. Show the evidence.
If people changed their vote in response to an ad, that would be an effect illustrating 'influence'. Show the evidence.

#62 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-02-15 02:40 PM | Reply

"Firstly, I don't think that any reasonable person changes their voting plan based on Russian created propaganda"

How would they know it was Russian propaganda? They wouldn't and clicking or sharing proves it did "influence" them. THAT should be self evident.

"If someone rabidly pro-Trump click like on a Russia created pro-Trump or anti-Clinton ad, then they propaganda had no influence on their vote."

Reinforcing lies and distortions of the truth is influencing and it drowns out the voices of reason.

"If more people showed up to the polls due to seeing propaganda of any sort, I'm not going to begrudge any pro-democracy 'influence' even if 'my guy' lost."

Playing on the base emotions of hate and xenophobia and reinforcing lies, sowing chaos and dividing our country against itself for the benefit of our adversaries and to our detriment so that it undermines our democratic institutions is not "pro-democracy influence". Just the opposite Comrade.

(I call you Comrade here because that statement you made is completely anti-American).

If fewer people showed up to the polls due to the propaganda, that would be an effect illustrating 'influence'. Show the evidence.
If people changed their vote in response to an ad, that would be an effect illustrating 'influence'. Show the evidence.

Garbage.
You know that is an absurd request. Which is why you keep making it. This not a court of law.

All we need to show is:
1) they did it with the intention of influencing the elections (they certainly did)
2) what they did certainly could have influenced the outcome (it certainly could have)
3) people were taken in by the fake news and shared it with others in an attempt to influence them (they did)
4) the outcome was completely unexpected by everyone including Trump (it was)

The fact is the Russians tried to influence our elections. We have no doubt that they succeeded. They succeeded.

We are just unsure how MUCH they succeeded.

#63 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-02-15 06:30 PM | Reply

Republican propaganda: $1 billion
Russian propaganda: $137K +-

#64 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-02-15 06:40 PM | Reply

We have no doubt that they succeeded. They succeeded. We are just unsure how MUCH they succeeded. - #63 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-02-15 06:30 PM
Since zero and negative numbers are acceptable to your above statement, I am forced to agree with it. Yes, propaganda may have had a positive, negative, or zero impact on the election.
So glad we had this talk.

#65 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-02-16 08:15 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort