It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Just where have ""the Russians"" gone?

page: 4
17
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2018 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: rockhndr
empty "gotcha" moment? **facepalm** BACK UP YOUR CLAIM....Oh! You actually can't? Then SIT THE **F** DOWN...preferably in the FRONT of the class, you know, so you can see the chalkboard better....a reply to: Krazysh0t


See. This is what I'm talking about. All the caps lock, misuse of ellipses, and yelling tells me that you aren't looking for a real discussion and only want to argue with me. Your words betray you. I actually seriously doubt that if I were to produce any evidence that you'd even admit to being wrong. I imagine you'd come up with some bs why the evidence isn't valid or doesn't count. Hell let's test the waters. The Steele Dossier is part of the evidence compelling the existence of this investigation, but I'm going to guess that it doesn't count because it was funded by the british/dnc/blah blah blah.
edit on 14-3-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 14 2018 @ 03:02 PM
link   
YES!! YES WE DO want to see it!! So, bring it....stop playing word games and deflecting others for asking what you can not prove....a reply to: rockhndr



posted on Mar, 14 2018 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: ausername
They're everywhere comrade!

Everywhere.



Its a trap!



posted on Mar, 14 2018 @ 03:06 PM
link   
YOU CAN'T provide evidence that does NOT exist....if you were SO sure of your claims, you'd have provided the rest of us those links....so that we can "Eat Crow"....Give me a break....We may disagree, but we are on the same planet, so Have an awesome day Krazy...when you can back your arguments with actual PROOF? We'll listen....a reply to: rockhndr



posted on Mar, 14 2018 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Those who have it show it, those who lack it flap their gums over it and then deflect when called upon to prove it. Hitchen's Razor applies here... "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be equally dismissed without evidence." Easiest path here is to dismiss unsupported, undefended, and unqualified claims, and yes, that includes the silly little defelction games.
You can't lose the game if you refuse to play the game.



posted on Mar, 14 2018 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Just where have ""the Russians"" gone?

They're busy trying to figure out how to hack the electoral college.

Ya know that thing that actually determines the outcome of our presidential election.

DOH!



posted on Mar, 14 2018 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Absolutely right...Some days are stronger than others at ignoring the obvious.....I need to check back in with Yoda, The Force within me is not strong enough today ;-) and admittedly, I got caught up just for a moment...**straightens her business skirt, shuts off the music, tames down the wild hair and kicked off shoes, goes back to being a casual observer LOL!! Thanks for reminding me of my dignity Burdman LOL a reply to: burdman30ott6



posted on Mar, 14 2018 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Happy to confirm it for you.











The sad part is you probably actually believe it.
It was a joke..



posted on Mar, 14 2018 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Maybe, but that narrative was dropped a long time ago when it was shown not to have any legs. Yet conservatives/Trump supporters won't drop it. Mostly the investigation has always been about Russian meddling anyways and the idea of them directly hacking the election was just a small inquiry that didn't pan out.
Sure but so far any evidence of meddling consists of a relatively minuscule (compared to campaign efforts writ large) amount of social media activity, part of which was anti trump or pro liberal org (BLM), and much of which happened after the election. There's not much good evidence of that being an explanatory variable for the election results.



posted on Mar, 14 2018 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Who cares where they have gone. They have not been a threat since 2012. Oh wait. That's when they were told the US would have more flexibility. Then our SecState made all of her contacts so she could be POTUS. Then, when they stole the nomination and tried to steal the election they could not do it. it was not Russia. It was a failed candidate no one really wanted except the media and the far left.

I simply amazes me that the O administration did nothing in 8 years to stop Russian growth. Remember, the Russians tipped us of to the Boston Bomber but the FBI did...nothing. Ukraine...he you guys stop it...Syria.....Stay out of our way unless we you need....a bunch of crap.

The Russians are not our friends and that is how Obama acted. I mean, listen to this....

www.politico.com...




Obama managed a few strained smiles during a four-minute photo opportunity at the outset of the meeting, though he seemed wary of creating too cheery an image in the company of the former KGB officer. “I’m aware of not only the extraordinary work that you’ve done on behalf of the Russian people ... as president, but in your current role as prime minister,” Obama said during a breakfast meeting at Putin’s country home on the outskirts of Moscow.

“We think there’s an excellent opportunity to put U.S.-Russian relations on a much stronger footing.” Yet by the meeting's end, Obama had revised his assessment of Putin and is now “very convinced the prime minister is a man of today and he’s got his eyes firmly on the future,” a senior U.S. official told reporters after the meeting concluded


So why was it ok for O to say this but Trump is wrong?




posted on Mar, 14 2018 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Thirty6BelowZero

You are absolutely right
But honestly, who cares if the Daniels story is true? It has nothing to do with being POTUS. I didn't vote for Trump because he was a saint, that is for sure.

Is betraying Melania a ## thing to do? Absolutely. But people make mistakes. Either way, my vote goes to DJT in 2020


Everyone knows Trump is a pig, thats not the news. The "news" is whether or not it was an illegal campaign contribution, undisclosed, or whether his lawyer just committed a disbarable offense in paying off a settlement for a client.

As for where are the Russians? Theyre around, plenty around here, that's for sure.

The difference is that Russians are only good for about 5% change in the vote, which is more than enough when Trump's "victory" came about through 77,000 well-placed votes in the mid-west, having lost the national vote by 3 million.

While we still have elections in this country, despite the best efforts of Kris Kobach and Donald Trump, energy and a wave can overcome Russians and other shenanigans.

Fact is, Repubs, you have just infuriated too many people, flipped a 20 pt "Trump" district to a Dem, you ought to have chills going through you as to what the country thinks of your guy and his Russian friends.



posted on Mar, 14 2018 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Funny isn't it, how the left wants to play the whole nationalist angle when it comes to global opinion on leadership, but goes internationalist for pretty much everything else. Middle east immigrants are basically citizens and deserve constitutional protection, but they better not try to promote an opinion.



posted on Mar, 14 2018 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
The Dems would have you falsely believe "The Russians" rigged the 2016 election against their candidate. However, this narrative is entirely debunked by the many recent state elections that have gone favorably for Dems. From New Jersey, to Louisiana and now seemingly even PA.

So, if Democrats are being targeted, why were these ones permitted to win? Wouldn't having either house of government out of GOP hands go against the supposed aims of this entirely theoretical Russian plot?

Evidence or it never happened. Even anecdotal evidence is now suggesting Dems lied about the fake Russia story. Sadly their lies may not be fully known until the midterms are over, potentially squandering a large period of time that our agenda could be otherwise un-challenged.

We already know they've accused a bunch of Americans as being Russian spy robots, so what else are they lying about? The evidence seems to say: Most of it, if not all.

Still haven't seen one shred of hard evidence. Indictments are cheap. Ham sandwiches can be indicted. Where's the hard evidence? The worst part is, since we all know those Russians won't be standing trial, Mueller will never have to produce one shred.

Where are you at Ruskies?


I asked a while ago how I could get some of them sweet sweet KGB rubles to post fake news for Russia. Not one could help hook me up with the Russians. I got bills to pay I need me some Russian propaganda money dammit.



posted on Mar, 14 2018 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6


Hitchen's Razor applies here... "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be equally dismissed without evidence."


I don't think this can be overstated



posted on Mar, 14 2018 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: dug88

Yeah me too Dug88. Last election I figured if I'm going to be trashing HRC anyways might as well actually get paid
Couldn't find anybody though... No Rubles



(for those who haven't already figured out, this is satire)

The point is that a lot of good Americans were accused of being Kremlin agents, and had their protected political speech minimized by a bitter loser and its sycophants.
edit on 3/14/2018 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2018 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Scrubdog

Full stop.

We've been told time and time again they had zero impact on the vote. You're claiming that is untrue?


The difference is that Russians are only good for about 5% change in the vote,


Care to cite your sources? Because BS figures you pulled out of your rear-end 5 seconds before making this post won't cut it.

Proof/sources, or admit you're pushing your opinion as if it were fact (which it is not)

For your sake, I hope you aren't actually trying to claim social media posts swung 5% of our national election. For your own credibility, please kindly get a clue about how US elections work and how much money they take to affect a fraction of 1%. No basis in reality for your claims. None whatsoever.

But if I'm wrong, please kindly correct the record.
edit on 3/14/2018 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2018 @ 07:36 PM
link   
You know I might have some spare change in rubles from my trip to st Petersburg if you want to collaborate. a reply to: dug88



posted on Mar, 14 2018 @ 08:38 PM
link   



posted on Mar, 14 2018 @ 09:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Scrubdog

Full stop.

We've been told time and time again they had zero impact on the vote. You're claiming that is untrue?


The difference is that Russians are only good for about 5% change in the vote,


Care to cite your sources? Because BS figures you pulled out of your rear-end 5 seconds before making this post won't cut it.

Proof/sources, or admit you're pushing your opinion as if it were fact (which it is not)

For your sake, I hope you aren't actually trying to claim social media posts swung 5% of our national election. For your own credibility, please kindly get a clue about how US elections work and how much money they take to affect a fraction of 1%. No basis in reality for your claims. None whatsoever.

But if I'm wrong, please kindly correct the record.


You are wrong. Yes, I'll more than correct the record, but I'll first note that the tone of your post, sparky, shows that the Russians have done a damn fine job.

It is YOUR people, Trump, who has said that the Russians had "zero impact" on the election. No one else has said this except people who assert that everything Trump says is correct. You have had someone on here running around stating that DHS stated that Russia had "no impact" on the election. That is wrong. DHS has said there is no evidence that a vote was changed, that is very different than "no impact" - all one has to do is kick voters off roles in certain precincts and you can pick up 1-2% right there.

Boy, I don't know if I can continue typing, I am just so intimidated by the tough guy keyboard warrior-talk. "For my sake ..." Whoa, what ever could happen to me?

If you recall, the question was "Where are the Russians" - as in Russia cannot possibly have had a thing to do with 2016 because Democrats keep winning. THAT is an utter nonsensical argument if I have ever heard one and set about demonstrating it.

I used 5% as a benchmark, the OUTERMOST target number, "Are only good for about 5%" is by the very words an approximation, the MAX that Russia could account for (granted, that takes some reading comprehension which I plead guilty to assuming). If you assume a 5% benchmark as the max case, and a dem wave overcomes a 20 point Trump district, there's nothing Russia can do, nothing voter-suppression can do, pretty much nothing anyone can do. THAT is what you're facing. Every intelligence head in the U.S. government testified that Russia continues to meddle within our elections, the Russians have gone nowhere ,it is just they no longer can overcome the urgency on the left and middle, having seen just what an utter incompetent disaster Trump and the Republicans have been.

As for Russian influence, it is difficult to measure, and yet not impossible. Gateway Pundit, a very FINE news source that now enjoys a White House press room pass under our new Banana Republic, posted 19 different stories originating with "real" Fake News sites within Russia. Cite with first quote.

And i know a great deal more about national elections than you, Sport. Never mind my law degree and work on national campaigns, I know for a fact that as of the last election, numbers weren't swayed by dollars so much as traffic through social media sites, sock puppets, and micro-targeted ads, (ask Jared) ones that cost a fraction (and cost Trump less than Clinton due to differing rules for the net). nymag.com...




his kind of free movement of misinformation between disingenuous and malevolent outside actors, passionate true believers, and the reading and voting public should be the real concern of anyone trying to assess the effects of social media on the political process — not a relatively small number of easy-to-identify (and easy-to-regulate) advertisements. A few weeks ago in a press conference, Senator Mark Warner, who is helping lead the Senate Intelligence Committee’s Russia inquiry, said that he was more concerned about sock puppets than ad buys. “It’s the organic posts masquerading as reality that nobody has to pay for, that, to me, is the bigger concern,” said García Martínez. Put another way, what we should worry about isn’t what Facebook was paid to do, but what it did for free. Clinton outraised and outspent Trump substantially over the course of the campaign, but his earned media — the chatter he generated — was upwards of a billion dollars, according to García Martínez. “The ability for Facebook to amplify that sort of message? That’s the scary, high-value thing.” And what’s dangerous isn’t just that false stories and conspiracy theories can travel up what Benkler calls the “attention backbone” of social media. In disclosing the Russian ads, Facebook stated plainly that it viewed the ability to communicate across borders as a strength of the system, not a liability. It’s the corrosive effect of these “inauthentic” accounts — which Facebook has no easy way of dealing with — and the attention economy that gives Trump a freebie campaign. There is a growing tendency for people to label anyone they don’t agree with online as a bot. A few months ago, an enterprising college student retweeted by Trump was accused of not existing simply because her profile picture was of a stock photo (raise your hand if you’ve ever used an avatar that wasn’t actually your own face). During the campaign, American trolls tried to suppress the vote by creating fake promotional images telling Clinton supporters that they could vote by text. They didn’t need to set up a Facebook campaign. They were able to spread them around the internet at no cost.



Not just that, but Russian created "fake news" reached 126 million Americans:




TextRussia-backed content reached as many as 126 million Americans on Facebook during and after the 2016 presidential election, according to the company’s prepared testimony submitted to the Senate judiciary committee before hearings this week. Facebook believes 120 fake Russian-backed pages created 80,000 posts that were received by 29 million Americans directly, but reached a much bigger audience by users sharing, liking and following the posts. The social network plans to disclose these numbers to the Senate judiciary committee on Tuesday, according to someone familiar with the testimony.



Hey, Trump won, ok? He did. Though I definitely want to hear more on the number of state databases hacked by Russians, but he "won." That doesn't mean that Russia didn't have an impact. I used 5% as an outer benchmark to counter an even more ridiculous notion, that because Democrats happen to be winning every special election, it means that no Russians are attempting to sway elections to the Republicans.

Now, you can deny it, you can tell me how stupid I am, you can take your aggressive "I hope for your sake" crap, and tell me all about how Russia had no impact on your boy winning. Go back to Q-world if you'd like, where all is calm and peaceful for the snowflakes and no one threatens the idea that their guy won solely on the basis of his obvious gifts and experience.



posted on Mar, 15 2018 @ 12:04 AM
link   
What does your law degree have to do with anything? You might be surprised. Others on here have relevant grad degrees and familiarity with the political world. reply to: Scrubdog


edit on 15-3-2018 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
17
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join