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.

 

The Russia collusion allegations are a classic "Witch Trial"

page: 7
10
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2019 @ 12:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: highvein
a reply to: chr0naut




You are suggesting that Obama destroyed his own party's chances just so he could blame an opposition President for him losing.
I am suggesting an extremely in depth investigation into Obama's actions on telling hacking security to stand down while this was happening.



And what would that achieve, exactly?


Justice.


So you see Obama as trying to achieve "justice", as a bad thing? Or were you thinking that Trump was somehow responsible for Obama telling security to stand down?

But please explain how allowing untruth to propagate, achieves justice anyway?


Now I answered your question. Answer mine.


You didn't actually answer my question. You only used a word loaded with emotional implication, but apparently you have entirely lost the context of who was doing what, and you still haven't given a why.




posted on Aug, 1 2019 @ 12:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Breakthestreak

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Breakthestreak
And still, no proof of ONE SINGLE PERSON changing their vote from hilary to Trump because they read a Russian tweet.

Surprise


What sort of thing would prove to you that someone changed their vote?

Do you imagine that someone, anywhere, was collecting such data?

Remember the "lock her up" chant? Remember the Obama birth certificate nonsense? Remember the thousands at rallies who were part of that? Those things were from the Russian trolls. The fact that most of what they were chanting about was provably false didn't stop them from parroting it in the thousands. Do you think that they might have changed their votes and because of the stuff they believed to be true because the read it online? There's your proof.


Do YOU remember the lies about Trump???

If the election was influenced it was influenced AGAINST Trump a whole lot more than it was the other way around

And he still won.


I don't particularly remember any lies about Trump from Russian trolls, but no doubt, there must have been.

Here's the database from the Permanent Select Comittee on Intelligence


From Russian trolls?

Jesus Christ .

300 million tweets is literally NOTHING.

The minuscule ‘influence’ the Russian trolls had was so insignificant.

I don’t remember a single individual anti-hilary post on Facebook.

The ‘influence’ of social media was OVERWHELMINGLY anti trump.

The election was ‘influenced’ AGAINST Trump and YOU are 100% aware of that fact.

But you’re a liar so, not a surprise there.

Tell me, who’s responsible now for the ‘influence’ that has made the democrat party far less than a tiny tiny ‘blip’ on the political radar??

Let me guess, ze Russians?

You’re wrong about your claim that 300 million tweets somehow drowned out BILLIONS of anti trump posts and tweets.
Especially since your ‘proof’ is “but 300 million tweets is a big number”

It’s not. It’s insignificant. The Russians did NOT have any influence whatsoever.

Don’t reply. Your opinion is less significant to me than the Russian influence was to the elections.

Go pander to your own failure of a prime minister who received FAR LESS of the ‘popular vote’ than ANY republican ever has.

Brainwashed



posted on Aug, 1 2019 @ 01:39 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

You got it all wrong.

It was the sputnik twin sisters vodka !!!!



posted on Aug, 1 2019 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Okay. Now your just bleating. Never mind.



posted on Aug, 1 2019 @ 08:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Not only that, who are the allegators?

Is that why Trump was speaking about draining the swamp?



Obama administration officials whom together with pro-Clinton FBI, CIA, DHS, etc used false RUSSIAN INFORMATION to spy on and try to depose POTUS Trump. Or do you still not understand that the false claims against Trump came directly from Russian officials?

As I responded to you in my thread.


And all of that is debunked by the FACT that Steele used two, there were other Russian sources as well, Russian officials for the lies in his dossier. Those two principal sources are Vyacheslav Trubnikov and Vladislav Surkov, both of which Steele admitted as his sources. Even former Obama State Dept. official Kathleen Kavalec had in her notes that those two were the Russian officials that Steele used for the false information in his dossier.


...
Steele started the dossier with a report dated June 20, 2016. He claimed that his sources included a “senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure” (Source A) and a “former top level Russian intelligence officer still active inside the Kremlin” (Source B). This top intelligence officer was the source for the claim that Putin was personally directing the pro-Trump effort.
...
On October 11, 2016, Steele was interviewed in Washington by State Department official Kathleen Kavalec. In that interview, he identified two of his insider Kremlin sources as Vladislov Surkov and Vyasheslov Trubnikov.
...

Was Brennan’s ‘Intelligence Bombshell’ the Steele Dossier?

The problem is that those sources are still part of the Russian government, and Vladislov Surkov happens to be Putin's top Russian advisor. These people are loyal to Putin, so why would they give any factual evidence ousting what you left-wingers call "Putin's stooge"? It makes no sense, unless the Russians were knowingly passing false information about Trump, which is why Comey/McCabe etc couldn't corroborate the claims in the Steele dossier. The Steele dossier is Russia's attempt at interfering in our elections. Not to mention the FACT that Russia's officials also backed in the U.S. both pro-Trump and anti-Trump protests. The claim by these bozos that Putin wanted Trump as POTUS is a lie, if he did none of these Russian officials would have been making lies about Trump if there was any truth in the claims that he worked/works for them...

Here, directly from Surkov's twitter account.


The latest Tweets from Vladislav Surkov (@therealsurkov). Personal adviser of Vladimir Putin. Political technologist, stage manager, surrealist poet & aspiring ventriloquist. aka Nathan Dubovitsky, aka surkovnotsurkov...

twitter.com...

You can also see the anti-Trump statements that Surkov makes in his tweets...

For example, this one...


twitter.com...

The FAKE claims that POTUS Trump has been working for the Russians is a LIE the Russians themselves used to try to interfere in our elections...

As for who is Vyacheslav Trubnikov, the other main Russian source Steele used for his dossier...


Vyacheslav Trubnikov
Vyacheslav Ivanovich Trubnikov is a Russian journalist, political scientist, spy and a diplomat. He has worked as the Director of Foreign Intelligence Service and currently is a First Deputy of Foreign Minister of Russia.
...

Vyacheslav Trubnikov

These Russian officials STILL WORK FOR THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT... If it was true that they ousted their "manchurian candidate" in the U.S. they would have been fired a long time ago and assassinated... Which proves the Steele Dossier is full of Russian LIES...


edit on 1-8-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment and excerpt.



posted on Aug, 1 2019 @ 11:30 PM
link   
Nope Trump has no ties to Russia or any vested interest in Russia. www.motherjones.com... Why would we investigate any of this?



posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 08:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Breakthestreak
And still, no proof of ONE SINGLE PERSON changing their vote from hilary to Trump because they read a Russian tweet.

Surprise


What sort of thing would prove to you that someone changed their vote?



I'm sure if anyone switched votes and then "heard" all about the Russians, Mueller would have had interviews and 1000s of sworn affidavits cited in the Report. To date, not a single one 🤣🍌🤣


The DOJ were only concerned with if Russia acted to interfere in the 2016 election, and the perpetrators. How effective their campaign was, is more the purview of a market research company



posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 08:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Breakthestreak
And still, no proof of ONE SINGLE PERSON changing their vote from hilary to Trump because they read a Russian tweet.

Surprise


What sort of thing would prove to you that someone changed their vote?

Do you imagine that someone, anywhere, was collecting such data?

Remember the "lock her up" chant? Remember the Obama birth certificate nonsense? Remember the thousands at rallies who were part of that? Those things were from the Russian trolls. The fact that most of what they were chanting about was provably false didn't stop them from parroting it in the thousands. Do you think that they might have changed their votes and because of the stuff they believed to be true because the read it online? There's your proof.


If agents or perhaps independent citizens of a foreign power saying stuff online is "interference", then no nation other than the USA could grant its own citizens the right to free speech online without "interfering in our election".

That has to not be classified that way.

Otherwise it would mean American citizens also didn't have the right to be critical (and/or supportive) of the actions of foreign leaders unless they kept their views off the internet.

It's the inevitable conclusion of that line of reasoning.

Russia has to have the right to tweet to its hearts' content, about whatever it wants. NO MATTER WHAT it does to our elections. Even if it is on purpose.


It wasn't just online.

And they didn't identify themselves as Russians.

There was significant identity theft and they portrayed themselves as being American citizens and patriots.

They also ran rallies across the country which thousands of people attended.



posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 08:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: highvein
a reply to: chr0naut




Yes.


What do you think should be done about Obama allowing it to happen?


You should replace him as Presid.... oh, wait.




posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 08:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: highvein
a reply to: chr0naut

Let me get this straight, just to clarify.

You believe that Russians influenced the election?


Yes.

My wife is very trusting and believes all sorts of crap she has seen on Falsebork. She has been quite angry with me at times when I go online and show her that the posts and advertisements from unknown, unmoderated and unregulated online social media are usually total lies.

Just yesterday she was telling me about this great breakthrough AI quantum computing autotrading bot that Elon Musk was promoting as free to the first 1000 people, was something we had to hurry and get on board.

So I did some digging.

Elon Musk was never involved, they just used his name and picture. There was no AI involved, it was a brokerage somewhere in the Dominican republic. There, of course, was no quantum computing involved either. It wasn't for free they wanted $1,000 US as seed funds. And, get this, they wanted you to buy cryptocurrency, that is what they were trading in!

But my wife had believed the advertisement and had shared it to her circle of friends about this great opportunity! So she had to contact them all and say it's a scam.

That is the sort of person and reaction that changed their vote because of what they read online.

On Falsebork alone there were estimates that the Russian troll posts, that came from about 750 ID's created for the purpose, were re-shared 350 million times. Re tweets or comments on Russian troll posts on the twit indicator, 677,775 people.

I find it incredible that someone could be adamant that there was no effect when there was such a massive, organized propaganda campaign and in the face of the actual numbers involved.


Ok so what about Google manipulation of search results that a google exec conservatively estimates shifted 15+ million votes her way?
Are you also upset about that or that ok because google claims to be American?

Is your wife the sort of person who responds to Nigerian princes and helps them get their money back from evil dictators?
I’ve never heard of an actual person falling for any of those scams, you sure you’re not making that up to prove an invalid point?

And while I’m here, I always hear lefty’s talking about Russian influence, what exactly did they say?
If it was all lies I’d be curious to hear what they were but if they were just spreading genuine info then aren’t they kinda the same as you and me? Just foreign nationals sharing an opinion or information?


My wife has never fallen for a Nigerian scam. But I know of one older guy who fell for one of those 'phone computer support scams and got ripped off when they got his banking details. I got called in to secure his PC and online accounts. He was most upset when I backed up his documents and wiped his PC. But eventually I think he saw the wisdom of it.

Here's some of what the Russian trolls said: intelligence.house.gov... dia-advertisements.htm

And they weren't Russians sharing their opinions. They posed as US citizens and patriots. There was even a fair degree if identity theft involved (documented in the Mueller report).



posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 08:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Breakthestreak
a reply to: chr0naut

You know full well that the lies and propaganda AGAINST Trump absolutely dwarfed whatever minuscule effect any ‘Russians’ had.

And you refuse to acknowledge it.

The ‘influence’ was against Trump, not clinton.

A small weight placed on top of the space shuttle does not ‘influence’ the launch. But the rocket propellant does.

(That’s called an analogy, and it’s very accurate in this case. The propellant is the anti trump lies and propaganda spread throughout social media by the VAST majority of subscribers worldwide)


No, the vast volume of negative disinformation was anti-Obama/Clinton.

There was some anti-Trump stuff, but it was nowhere near as much.



posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 08:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
a reply to: chr0naut

So you think the "lock her up" chants stemmed from Russian trolls online?

And not because of, oh I don't know, the endless list of crimes committed by Hillary Clinton that are well documented and easily researchable by anyone with a computer and fingers??


Endless list of crimes?

List them and check their veracity.



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 12:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut


And they weren't Russians sharing their opinions. They posed as US citizens and patriots. There was even a fair degree if identity theft involved (documented in the Mueller report).




Do you operate under the illusion that China doesn't do EXACTLY the same thing for Democrat candidates?

The main difference between the two parties is which world power they prefer to be allies to. The Dems want to buddy up to China. The Republicans want to buddy up to Russia.

Both powers have a pony in every race.



originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: chr0naut

You got it all wrong.

It was the sputnik twin sisters vodka !!!!



It's worth reading the whole thread, just to find that.



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 08:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: highvein
a reply to: chr0naut

Let me get this straight, just to clarify.

You believe that Russians influenced the election?


Yes.

My wife is very trusting and believes all sorts of crap she has seen on Falsebork. She has been quite angry with me at times when I go online and show her that the posts and advertisements from unknown, unmoderated and unregulated online social media are usually total lies.

Just yesterday she was telling me about this great breakthrough AI quantum computing autotrading bot that Elon Musk was promoting as free to the first 1000 people, was something we had to hurry and get on board.

So I did some digging.

Elon Musk was never involved, they just used his name and picture. There was no AI involved, it was a brokerage somewhere in the Dominican republic. There, of course, was no quantum computing involved either. It wasn't for free they wanted $1,000 US as seed funds. And, get this, they wanted you to buy cryptocurrency, that is what they were trading in!

But my wife had believed the advertisement and had shared it to her circle of friends about this great opportunity! So she had to contact them all and say it's a scam.

That is the sort of person and reaction that changed their vote because of what they read online.

On Falsebork alone there were estimates that the Russian troll posts, that came from about 750 ID's created for the purpose, were re-shared 350 million times. Re tweets or comments on Russian troll posts on the twit indicator, 677,775 people.

I find it incredible that someone could be adamant that there was no effect when there was such a massive, organized propaganda campaign and in the face of the actual numbers involved.


Ok so what about Google manipulation of search results that a google exec conservatively estimates shifted 15+ million votes her way?
Are you also upset about that or that ok because google claims to be American?

Is your wife the sort of person who responds to Nigerian princes and helps them get their money back from evil dictators?
I’ve never heard of an actual person falling for any of those scams, you sure you’re not making that up to prove an invalid point?

And while I’m here, I always hear lefty’s talking about Russian influence, what exactly did they say?
If it was all lies I’d be curious to hear what they were but if they were just spreading genuine info then aren’t they kinda the same as you and me? Just foreign nationals sharing an opinion or information?


There was some archive that some students and academics had made and put online where you could look at each of the troll user id's and then drill down and read all their posts.

I have lost the reference but I'll PM you if I find it again.

There's also a database of TwitIndicator posts that they released recently, something like 300 million of them, from known Russian trolls, and about 100 million of them were downloadable as .csv files.


I’m not questioning or caring if they were Russian, what I want to know is was the info false?
To me it seems there is more than enough factual and verifiable dirt on Hillary that any falsehoods seem redundant.


Really? What factual and verifiable dirt?

She was accused of lots of things, but the vast majority of them are false. She didn't run a child abuse ring out of a pizza shop. She didn't orchestrate or ignore an attack on a US embassy. She didn't use the Clinton Foundation to accept bribes. She didn't murder people to cover up past dealings. She didn't sell uranium to the Russians. She didn't know Weinstein was a rapist. She didn't

As far as I can tell, the only actual thing that she did wrong, that was factually verified, was that she used the wrong e-mail system for some of her communications. Having a private e-mail system or a personal phone isn't a crime. If she had sent secret information to the wrong people, that would be a crime, but she didn't do that.


So if it wasn’t lies these “Russians” were spreading why is their input less valid than yours or mine?
You argued that even as a non American your opinion counts, seems like a bit of a double standard to me.
You sure your not a Democrat?

You also didn’t answer what you thought of Googles actual admission of swaying votes, how do you feel about a search engine, the largest in the world deliberately intervening in an election on behalf of a candidate?
Over 15 million votes by their own reckoning


Umm, not by their own reckoning. It was stated by Dr. Robert Epstein that he believes that between 2.6 and 10.4 million votes were shifted by influencing search outcomes. Those figures are really just what Epstein thinks the effects of the algorithmic bias might have had as an effect.

There is no way that anyone can know for a fact that there was that magnitude of an effect, the same as with the Russian trolls posts, however I would expect that there was such an influence over people's voting.

And if there was such an effect on 10.4 million, or 15 million people, how would that really mitigate against the combined 700 million combined social media posts raised by the Russian trolls?

The real argument is that online media are a rule unto themselves and are not balanced, truthful or under any sort of fair control. We need to be able to either clearly understand their biases or to know that they are worthy of trust. At present, people are being manipulated and the worst and most outrageous falsehoods are the very thing that grabs the attention and gets amplified on social media by the volumes of shares or likes.

One might suggest that anyone who is popular on social media is really the last person we should grant any credibility to, or trust in, because of the nature of what we know gets the attention and buy-in on those platforms.



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 08:29 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Says the foreign national.
Lol
Can't make this stuff up.



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 08:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: highvein
a reply to: chr0naut

Okay. Now your just bleating. Never mind.


No, I asked what Obama would have achieved, for himself or for his party, by allowing the Russian disinformation campaign to continue to deride his Presidency and to deride the primary candidate that his party was putting forward.

I was suggesting that committing suicide (politically) is not a way for someone to gain the upper hand (politically). And the inference that someone would do so, to gain some advantage over a political opponent, is irrational.



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 08:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut

Says the foreign national.
Lol
Can't make this stuff up.


Why can't you make this stuff up?

Anyone can make this stuff up, and they are, left right and center. Yet a number of people on this thread seem unable to believe that they are being, and have been, lied to.

Besides, from my point of view, you are are foreign national. Get over it, it's a small planet.




edit on 3/8/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut




No, I asked what Obama would have achieved, for himself or for his party, by allowing the Russian disinformation campaign to continue to deride his Presidency and to deride the primary candidate that his party was putting forward.


He would have achieved exactly what has happened, political turmoil for the new President that he could not stop.




I was suggesting that committing suicide (politically)


Political Suicide? Is there another position he wanted to run for? He got his two terms. How do you think that is political suicide?




is not a way for someone to gain the upper hand (politically).


He didn't need the upper hand, he just needed political turmoil. It almost worked too. Now that the Russian Collusion has been put behind him, Trump is going to go after the people who went after him.




And the inference that someone would do so, to gain some advantage over a political opponent, is irrational.


Your telling me that it is irrational to think that a politician would act irrationally when trying to stop their political enemy from claiming power? You really need to read about the irrational decisions of leaders around the world. There was one guy who thought it was rational to kill as many Jewish people as he could while trying to take over the entire world. Rational politicians are few and far between.







edit on 3-8-2019 by highvein because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2019 @ 06:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

Really? What factual and verifiable dirt?

She was accused of lots of things, but the vast majority of them are false. She didn't run a child abuse ring out of a pizza shop. She didn't orchestrate or ignore an attack on a US embassy. She didn't use the Clinton Foundation to accept bribes. She didn't murder people to cover up past dealings. She didn't sell uranium to the Russians. She didn't know Weinstein was a rapist. She didn't


The Benghazi attack comes pretty close to meeting the criteria of ignoring an attack.

en.wikipedia.org...


There were several less severe attacks prior the one that actually killed so many people. By "less severe" I mean nobody died, but some serious property damage occurred and some bombs that could have killed people missed their mark.

The embassy made several requests for heightened security, to the state department (of which Hillary was secretary) and was denied repeatedly. They felt their security was being kept "artificially low".


In later Congressional hearings she claimed the matter was never brought to her attention, and that she neither approved, nor disapproved the security requests.

Given the severity of the attacks leading up to it, its VERY DIFFICULT to believe she hadn't been made aware of the problem. (Unless she was just absolutely inept in her role, or that lazy, and couldn't be bothered to know an embassy had been attacked, and bombed, and was likely to be attacked further.)









Umm, not by their own reckoning. It was stated by Dr. Robert Epstein that he believes that between 2.6 and 10.4 million votes were shifted by influencing search outcomes. Those figures are really just what Epstein thinks the effects of the algorithmic bias might have had as an effect.

There is no way that anyone can know for a fact that there was that magnitude of an effect, the same as with the Russian trolls posts, however I would expect that there was such an influence over people's voting.

And if there was such an effect on 10.4 million, or 15 million people, how would that really mitigate against the combined 700 million combined social media posts raised by the Russian trolls?

The real argument is that online media are a rule unto themselves and are not balanced, truthful or under any sort of fair control. We need to be able to either clearly understand their biases or to know that they are worthy of trust. At present, people are being manipulated and the worst and most outrageous falsehoods are the very thing that grabs the attention and gets amplified on social media by the volumes of shares or likes.

One might suggest that anyone who is popular on social media is really the last person we should grant any credibility to, or trust in, because of the nature of what we know gets the attention and buy-in on those platforms.


There's no way to know if Putin was connected with the trolls. Russia has something like 20 oligarchs, all about as rich as Putin. All capable of coordinating a cyber attack.

It could have been any of them. Or it could even be a group of US based corporations who hired them. (Like Russian hackers are seriously going to be picky about who's paying them.)



Once you're that deep into conjecture..................... well the only thing for it is to hold a witch trial!!!! Right?
edit on 4-8-2019 by bloodymarvelous because: had to fix a quote



posted on Aug, 4 2019 @ 08:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: chr0naut

Really? What factual and verifiable dirt?

She was accused of lots of things, but the vast majority of them are false. She didn't run a child abuse ring out of a pizza shop. She didn't orchestrate or ignore an attack on a US embassy. She didn't use the Clinton Foundation to accept bribes. She didn't murder people to cover up past dealings. She didn't sell uranium to the Russians. She didn't know Weinstein was a rapist. She didn't


The Benghazi attack comes pretty close to meeting the criteria of ignoring an attack.

en.wikipedia.org...


There were several less severe attacks prior the one that actually killed so many people. By "less severe" I mean nobody died, but some serious property damage occurred and some bombs that could have killed people missed their mark.

The embassy made several requests for heightened security, to the state department (of which Hillary was secretary) and was denied repeatedly. They felt their security was being kept "artificially low".


In later Congressional hearings she claimed the matter was never brought to her attention, and that she neither approved, nor disapproved the security requests.

Given the severity of the attacks leading up to it, its VERY DIFFICULT to believe she hadn't been made aware of the problem. (Unless she was just absolutely inept in her role, or that lazy, and couldn't be bothered to know an embassy had been attacked, and bombed, and was likely to be attacked further.)


How could US authorities have specific foreknowledge of the attack on the embassy? The whole area of Syria had been unstable for nearly a decade (as per the Wikipedia page you posted).

Did anyone in the US know about 911 before it happened? It was a surprise attack. The same with the attack at Benghazi.

There were actually two attacks, separated by several hours, and at two separate locations, more than a mile apart.

The first, on the embassy, was over by the time that the nearby CIA team had got to the site, 30 minutes after the attack stated. Two of the 7 onsite staff were killed at the embassy.

The US authorities were contacted about the attack on the embassy at 3:40 PM, Eastern time (940 PM Benghazi time, i.e; when the attack started), and the information was escalated to General Panetta at 4:30 PM Eastern time, 50 minutes later. Some time between 4:30 PM and 5:41 PM (when they got drone footage), Clinton got involved when she phoned the CIA Director to organize CIA operatives in Benghazi. By that time, the CIA operatives in Benghazi had already arrived at the embassy and had control of the situation. There is nothing to indicate that Clinton ignored the situation at all.

The next attack, next morning, was because the insurgents had figured out where the CIA guys had come from. That second attack was mostly a mortar attack and was over in 11 minutes. Two were killed at the CIA compound. No-one anticipated the attack on the CIA compound. At that point in time, all staff were either helping to ferry the injured to the airport or were defending the compound. There was really no US response teams to come to the aid of the people in the CIA compound, at the time, however the Libyan government troops and the US Navy provided support as soon as it could get them to location.

When you look at the time-frames (mentioned in the Wikipedia page) it is clear that the online suggestions, which are STILL believed today (as demonstrated), are bogus.



Umm, not by their own reckoning. It was stated by Dr. Robert Epstein that he believes that between 2.6 and 10.4 million votes were shifted by influencing search outcomes. Those figures are really just what Epstein thinks the effects of the algorithmic bias might have had as an effect.

There is no way that anyone can know for a fact that there was that magnitude of an effect, the same as with the Russian trolls posts, however I would expect that there was such an influence over people's voting.

And if there was such an effect on 10.4 million, or 15 million people, how would that really mitigate against the combined 700 million combined social media posts raised by the Russian trolls?

The real argument is that online media are a rule unto themselves and are not balanced, truthful or under any sort of fair control. We need to be able to either clearly understand their biases or to know that they are worthy of trust. At present, people are being manipulated and the worst and most outrageous falsehoods are the very thing that grabs the attention and gets amplified on social media by the volumes of shares or likes.

One might suggest that anyone who is popular on social media is really the last person we should grant any credibility to, or trust in, because of the nature of what we know gets the attention and buy-in on those platforms.

There's no way to know if Putin was connected with the trolls. Russia has something like 20 oligarchs, all about as rich as Putin. All capable of coordinating a cyber attack.

It could have been any of them. Or it could even be a group of US based corporations who hired them. (Like Russian hackers are seriously going to be picky about who's paying them.)

Once you're that deep into conjecture..................... well the only thing for it is to hold a witch trial!!!! Right?


All those potential Russian oligarch's are still Russian, aren't they?

Does it really matter which Russian group was trying to mess with the US elections? Is that some sort of excuse for it?

The thing is, radio and TV can't just carry any and all political adverts. There is a control over it. But there's no control over what gets pushed to consumers on the internet.

edit on 4/8/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join