Russian and alt-right Interference in democracies.

Billy86

ligerdub wrote: »

You popped up to answer to question then when challenged you suggested it had nothing to do with you and used the standard "strawman" bolloxology. It's either relevant to you or it isn't. I made the point to those who claimed clearly he would be impeached, so if that's not you then feel free to sit this one out.

As I said in my post, which I suggested you didn't read, "I couldn't find a market for the bet". I've made my money on a Trump win already, although I only had to wait a few weeks for that one. Nice one Donald.

Additionally, I don't fancy waiting for 4 years. If it's clear he will be impeached then it will happen sooner, I'd imagine if it will happen it will be within 2 years (and I'm throwing a bone there), a big difference in time.

Yes, I showed that the odds are startlingly low for an impeachment. The odds being so low are entirely irrelevant to the discussion at present in the thread, and if you don't like someone bringing that up you're free to ignore it yourself. You were the one laying out a challenge you're not willing to back yourself as a straw man argument to try and make out I claimed something that I never did. Quite basic stuff really.

Good on you for winning money on Trump by the way, how much did you bet and I assume you'll be posting the betslip?

Count Dooku

demfad wrote: »

We know St Petersburg trolls were trolling Clinton supporters and amplifying disinformation and fake news on social media.

Do you mean article from Louise Mensch, which you linked in your OP?
She is really insane and article is full of her hallucinations rather than real facts, which everybody can check himself
Even pro-Clinton WaPo had to admit that #TrumpWon didn't start in Russia, like the rest of her "facts" which have been invented under influence of hard drugs

Il Fascista

Wasn't Louise caught offering to shill for Clinton through wikileaks?

ligerdub

Billy86 wrote: »

Yes, I showed that the odds are startlingly low for an impeachment. The odds being so low are entirely irrelevant to the discussion at present in the thread, and if you don't like someone bringing that up you're free to ignore it yourself. You were the one laying out a challenge you're not willing to back yourself as a straw man argument to try and make out I claimed something that I never did. Quite basic stuff really.

Good on you for winning money on Trump by the way, how much did you bet and I assume you'll be posting the betslip?

I've already explained to you twice....I won't be explaining it gain Billy.

I suggest you just accept the Trump era, and put what must have been a tough few weeks behind you. Godspeed.

Billy86

ligerdub wrote: »

I've already explained to you twice....I won't be explaining it gain Billy.

I suggest you just accept the Trump era, and put what must have been a tough few weeks behind you. Godspeed.

You're going through that checklist nicely now, failing to address the points you brought up and trying the "time to accept it" line as yet another straw man to deflect attention away. In case you're confused, a straw man is defined as "an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument" and at no point did a refuse to accept that Trump won the election. It's incredible how predictable you lot tend to be.

And no betslip to back up your claim?

ligerdub

Why would I have a betslip from 2 months ago? Better file that away for the purpose of internet debate?

I've already explained that you've set yourself up as the strawman deliberately. You're choosing to both be engaged in this debate yet strawman stuff also. As I say, a rule of 3 and that's it.

I've no time for this charade to be honest. Take that however you wish, I really don't care.

Billy86

ligerdub wrote: »

Why would I have a betslip from 2 months ago? Better file that away for the purpose of internet debate?

I've already explained that you've set yourself up as the strawman deliberately. You're choosing to both be engaged in this debate yet strawman stuff also. As I say, a rule of 3 and that's it.

I've no time for this charade to be honest. Take that however you wish, I really don't care.

It would be easier if you just told me your dog ate the betslip; pretty amusing considering your throwing out challenges to people to show you their betslips on Trump's impeachment.

And no, go back over the definition of straw man. Instead of asking why the odds of Trump being impeached are so short, pretending that I said he will be impeached when I never did is a textbook example of a straw man. Instead of addressing it the second time, choosing to claim I need to "just accept Trump won" when I never once disputed that and have actually said multiple times on this forum that because he won the EC, he of course won the election despite what the popular vote was, is again about as definitive a straw man argument as you can get.

And now you're claiming I made you use those straw man arguments and set you up, ticking yet another checklist of the Trump fan playbook, which is to play the victim when called on something and try to make it all out to be someone else's fault.

So why are the odds so startlingly short on Trump being impeached?

Count Dooku

Il Fascista wrote: »

Wasn't Louise caught offering to shill for Clinton through wikileaks?

I more like this one
Giving rampant Tory Louise Mensch Twitter access is like giving a machine gun to a chimp, writes John Niven

KingBrian2

Count Dooku wrote: »

I more like this one
Giving rampant Tory Louise Mensch Twitter access is like giving a machine gun to a chimp, writes John Niven

I liked her pity she was let go or did she resign either way i liked her directness.

demfad

Here is an article about how St Petersburg trolls and cyber bots worked in tandem with Fake news , alt-right and Russian propaganda sites both overtly and covertly since 2014.
https://warontherocks.com/2016/11/trolling-for-trump-how-russia-is-trying-to-destroy-our-democracy/
The interference is now accepted by everyone bar Assange and Russia.

WinnyThePoo

demfad wrote: »

Here is an article about how St Petersburg trolls and cyber bots worked in tandem with Fake news , alt-right and Russian propaganda sites both overtly and covertly since 2014.
https://warontherocks.com/2016/11/trolling-for-trump-how-russia-is-trying-to-destroy-our-democracy/
The interference is now accepted by everyone bar Assange and Russia.

Superb article. We see stuff on here as well!

KingBrian2

demfad wrote: »

Here is an article about how St Petersburg trolls and cyber bots worked in tandem with Fake news , alt-right and Russian propaganda sites both overtly and covertly since 2014.
https://warontherocks.com/2016/11/trolling-for-trump-how-russia-is-trying-to-destroy-our-democracy/
The interference is now accepted by everyone bar Assange and Russia.

Much like America's foreign policy interferes in elections throughout the world. Hillary had wall to wall fake stories produced to ensure Trump would lose. The Washington elite used the same tactics outside of America inside of America to get much desired result they wanted.

demfad

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Much like America's foreign policy interferes in elections throughout the world. Hillary had wall to wall fake stories produced to ensure Trump would lose. The Washington elite used the same tactics outside of America inside of America to get much desired result they wanted.

Can you substantiate all/any of these claims please? As the OP my preference would be politely that people use substantiation when making these claims. There is too much fake stuff flying around not to.

KingBrian2

demfad wrote: »

Can you substantiate all/any of these claims please? As the OP my preference would be politely that people use substantiation when making these claims. There is too much fake stuff flying around not to.

Lurid stories came out during the election that Trump was going to take America to war once in office. He was unfit to become the President of the United States. That is more of an editorial piece than factual journalism. The implication being to be American you must not vote Trump as he was an enemy of the people. Trump stuck to the town hall format at his rallies and won big with the crowds. He enjoyed wide spread support among the rally supporters. In reference to climate change, position on Israel, terrorism and immigration these were all areas the GOP had been campaigning on for years. The media blew these stories out of proportion to distort the image. I'll have to put it down to the fact that Trump is extremely wealthy so the press were going after him. Even so the media was malice in its insistence Trump should not be elected gathering Republican & Democrat alike to attack his positions with no counter argument from Trump's side. Virtually a one sided contest until the end.:cool:

Count Dooku

demfad wrote: »

Here is an article about how St Petersburg trolls and cyber bots worked in tandem with Fake news , alt-right and Russian propaganda sites both overtly and covertly since 2014.
https://warontherocks.com/2016/11/trolling-for-trump-how-russia-is-trying-to-destroy-our-democracy/
The interference is now accepted by everyone bar Assange and Russia.

Anyway, Masha Gessen(who is hardly fan of Putin) is having laugh from CIA hacking report
Russia, Trump & Flawed Intelligence

Yourself isit

demfad wrote: »

Here is an article about how St Petersburg trolls and cyber bots worked in tandem with Fake news , alt-right and Russian propaganda sites both overtly and covertly since 2014.
https://warontherocks.com/2016/11/trolling-for-trump-how-russia-is-trying-to-destroy-our-democracy/
The interference is now accepted by everyone bar Assange and Russia.

That's just repeating the same old crap. It's original proof is that Russians on twitter managed to get a "give alaska back to Russia" campaign.

Then Russia manages to interfere with election machines not connected to the Internet. (That argument had been subsequently dropped).

demfad

Yourself isit wrote: »

That's just repeating the same old crap. It's original proof is that Russians on twitter managed to get a "give alaska back to Russia" campaign.

Then Russia manages to interfere with election machines not connected to the Internet. (That argument had been subsequently dropped).

You know other people can actually read the article to expose your nonsense also? The people who investigated for this article were first alerted to the automated bots by the strange case of the Alaska petition, that's all.
Voter databases were hacked amonst others. This is all on the IC reports.
Even Trump has accepted this.

demfad

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Lurid stories came out during the election that Trump was going to take America to war once in office. He was unfit to become the President of the United States. That is more of an editorial piece than factual journalism. The implication being to be American you must not vote Trump as he was an enemy of the people. Trump stuck to the town hall format at his rallies and won big with the crowds. He enjoyed wide spread support among the rally supporters. In reference to climate change, position on Israel, terrorism and immigration these were all areas the GOP had been campaigning on for years. The media blew these stories out of proportion to distort the image. I'll have to put it down to the fact that Trump is extremely wealthy so the press were going after him. Even so the media was malice in its insistence Trump should not be elected gathering Republican & Democrat alike to attack his positions with no counter argument from Trump's side. Virtually a one sided contest until the end.:cool:

How do you know he is wealthy? Have you seen his tax returns? Maybe he owes billions?

Over 5 times more media time was spent on Clintons emails than Trumps financial connections to oligarchs and Russian. The media were completely distracted by these. Trump controlled what the media covered via his twitter feed. Trump was able to effectively use the hacking to amplify his 'crooked Hillery' rhetoric. He mentioned wikileaks etc. over 160 times in the last month before the election. The coverage was completely biased towards non-issues on Clinton's side while ignoring huge stories on Trumps side.
This is not a legitimate president. With some luck the impeachment will take the whole Trump campaign team down.

BuilderPlumber

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Lurid stories came out during the election that Trump was going to take America to war once in office. He was unfit to become the President of the United States. That is more of an editorial piece than factual journalism. The implication being to be American you must not vote Trump as he was an enemy of the people. Trump stuck to the town hall format at his rallies and won big with the crowds. He enjoyed wide spread support among the rally supporters. In reference to climate change, position on Israel, terrorism and immigration these were all areas the GOP had been campaigning on for years. The media blew these stories out of proportion to distort the image. I'll have to put it down to the fact that Trump is extremely wealthy so the press were going after him. Even so the media was malice in its insistence Trump should not be elected gathering Republican & Democrat alike to attack his positions with no counter argument from Trump's side. Virtually a one sided contest until the end.:cool:

I'm sick of all this exaggerated anti-Trump stuff. The media latch onto stories and exaggerate and embellish them. As for some of the things the media said:

'Unfit to be president'. We will see if he is or not once he is president. No one can say for sure what Trump will be as president. The facts are is he has the same world problems as Obama has.

'Enemy of the people'. He is a politician. He is a big businessman. This sort of rhetoric will follow him always.

With regard to war: because of the past mistakes of other administrations including both Republican and Democrat ones, Trump's America will inherit wars that America is already involved in. The fight against ISIS and other organised criminal extremism is real and necessary. Trump has hit out against China mainly in terms of trade but America won't take them or Russia or any other power on. What about countries like Iran and North Korea that America could defeat in 4 weeks? North Korea has nothing to offer and poses no threat. So, he won't waste resources invading a poor country with nothing. Iran on the other hand has a lot to offer but poses no threat also. I feel Trump and his advisors know that America could defeat Ali Khamenei's regime in 4 weeks but that would invite an Iraq style insurgency and a possible Shia v Sunni war in the greater Middle East. Instead, Trump could present a new take it or leave it deal to Iran with a carrot and stick approach and added benefits to Trump industries. Trump is not stupid, so he won't go to war with Iran (the destruction of one of the region's few relatively stable states is going to be of no benefit at all to American interests and that's why no American president has invaded this country so far).

With regard to Israel/Palestine, Trump has to find a solution to the issues there. He will propose something and the Israelis will agree and won't enact it and the same old same old continues on. Israel will remain a US ally. A large amount of the way things pan out here depends on who Israel's near future PMs are. Netanyahu is considered hardline and quite corrupt but was tempered by Obama. Trump will be more amenable but he too will lay down markers and pressure to find a solution to the problems of the Palestinian issues will be part of a plan for winning propaganda from ISIS and co.

The legacy of Trump will be more profoundly felt in the whole environmental arena. He has interests in the fossil fuel sector and will row back on efforts towards greener energies. All that said and done, he will learn he will have to abide by international agreements as he will find America needs cooperation with other countries too.

Billy86

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

No one can say for sure what Trump will be as president.

Then why is most of your post attempting to do just that?

KingBrian2

It all went down hill for Pres Obama with the drone wars his own party was hostile to and encouraging the Arabs to overthrow their gvts. A disaster on the foreign policy front. As for domestically i'm no American so it is not my place to say was he good or bad but in terms of neo-liberal approach to economics Pres Obama debunked that whole system which was good. He was strong on fighting for the Unions in Detroit and taking on the Bankers in New York. He did not stop the corruption in Congress which is bad today as it was when he entered office. The lessons to take from his Presidency is America has its limits when it comes to international affairs and it is the turn of the National gvts to sort out their own backyards.

johnp001

Lavrov speech at press conference with Austrian FM as reported by RT this afternoon:

RT wrote:

UK, Germany, & France ‘grossly interfered’ in US election – Russian FM
Leaders and top officials from the UK, Germany, and France have “grossly interfered” in US internal affairs, “campaigned” for Hillary Clinton, and openly “demonized” Donald Trump, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said.
Speaking at a press conference following a meeting with Austrian counterpart Sebastian Kurz, Lavrov said Moscow “is tired" of accusations it meddled in the US election.

In fact, Lavrov said, it is time to “acknowledge the fact” that it was the other way around.

“US allies have grossly interfered in America’s internal affairs, in the election campaign,” Lavrov said.

“We noticed that Angela Merkel, Francois Hollande, Theresa May, and other European leaders” did so. He added that official representatives of some of the European countries did not mince words, and essentially “demonized” Donald Trump during the election campaign.

In August last year, German Foreign Minister Frank Walther Steinmeier called Trump a “hate preacher.”

Reacting to Trump’s statement that parts of London are ‘no-go areas,’ UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson said in December that Trump is “unfit” to be US president. Later on, however, Johnson said that Trump’s presidency might be a “moment of opportunity.”

The Russian government, on the other hand, has expressed its willingness to work with the US under Donald Trump.

“Trump says that if the promotion of US national interests would lead to a chance of working with Russia, it would be foolish not to do that,” Lavrov said.

“Our approach is the same: where our interests coincide, we should be and are ready to work together with the US as well as the EU and NATO,” the minister stressed.

Over the past year, Russia has been repeatedly accused by Washington of meddling in the US election.

In January, the US Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) issued a report allegedly proving Moscow had its fingers in the US election campaign. The public was only provided, however, with a declassified part of the paper, which contained no solid evidence.

Trump’s advisor on foreign policy during the campaign, Carter Page, told RT that the paper was “speculative” and served “certain political theories.”

The US media, citing CIA sources and unverified reports, even alleged that Moscow tried to aid Trump directly to secure his victory.

Trump rebuffed the allegations, saying it was simply another “excuse” by the Democrats to explain the defeat of Hillary Clinton.

demfad

Leaked: 6 agencies investigating him. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article127231799.html

Elmer Blooker

demfad wrote: »

Leaked: 6 agencies investigating him. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article127231799.html

I had a look through your link to check on it's impartiality and I think it might be just a little biased ..... just a tad perhaps?
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/opinion/editorial-cartoons/article111651707.html
Trump voter = a gun toting redneck.
Clinton voter = a young black hipster.
I've seen you go on about Russian propaganda in your posts, irony or what!!

Hank Scorpio

As for the thread title, bunch of lies imo, as far as the Wikileaks Russia link goes.

Two public reports, zero proof. Lack of definite statements by Trump who was briefed on the confidential reports.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/13/politics/russia-us-election/

On Friday, former Acting CIA Director Mike Morrell said on a conference call organized by the Clinton campaign that it was "absolutely clear ... WikiLeaks and Guccifer 2 are working with the Russians on this."

Obama himself in the press conference said yesterday they don't know if Wikileaks was aware Russia was behind the hack.

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/821836634710806529

By that admittance, it's possible Russia hacked the DNC but didn't provide the emails to Wikileaks, it may have been another source. They have no evidence that Russia was leaking emails to Wikileaks.

The truth will come out eventually

Gatling

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

By that admittance, it's possible Russia hacked the DNC but didn't provide the emails to Wikileaks, it may have been another source.

The truth will come out eventually

Look how wiki leaks work , russia if they did hack and supply the emails to wiki leaks it would still come from a third party which would likely lead no trail back to the Kremlin ,
A secure drop which is provided by a 3rd party if im correct then wiki download the info ,again I'm open to correction on that

Hank Scorpio

Gatling wrote: »

Look how wiki leaks work , russia if they did hack and supply the emails to wiki leaks it would still come from a third party which would likely lead no trail back to the Kremlin ,
A secure drop which is provided by a 3rd party if im correct then wiki download the info ,again I'm open to correction on that

I get your point, but if there's no trail, there must be a trail between the 3rd party and the Kremlin for the accusations to make sense, and we've seen no evidence of this.

The link from where you upload the files to Wikileaks website uses untraceable methods afaik, it's required.

https://www.wordfence.com/blog/2016/12/russia-malware-ip-hack/

This report is very informative.

It's conclusion :

The IP addresses that DHS provided may have been used for an attack by a state actor like Russia. But they don’t appear to provide any association with Russia. They are probably used by a wide range of other malicious actors, especially the 15% of IP addresses that are Tor exit nodes.

The malware sample is old, widely used and appears to be Ukrainian. It has no apparent relationship with Russian intelligence and it would be an indicator of compromise for any website.

johnp001

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

As for the thread title, bunch of lies imo, as far as the Wikileaks Russia link goes.

Two public reports, zero proof. Lack of definite statements by Trump who was briefed on the confidential reports.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/13/politics/russia-us-election/

On Friday, former Acting CIA Director Mike Morrell said on a conference call organized by the Clinton campaign that it was "absolutely clear ... WikiLeaks and Guccifer 2 are working with the Russians on this."

Obama himself in the press conference said yesterday they don't know if Wikileaks was aware Russia was behind the hack.

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/821836634710806529

By that admittance, it's possible Russia hacked the DNC but didn't provide the emails to Wikileaks, it may have been another source. They have no evidence that Russia was leaking emails to Wikileaks.

The truth will come out eventually

Good post. Just as regards the truth coming out eventually, Robert Parry published an article on this subject yesterday detailing numerous cases where the facts are available that counter previous establishment positions but there has been no acceptance of these facts into the narrative pushed by the mainstream media.
I hope and believe that truth will prevail because those who don't even acknowledge the mistakes of history are even more doomed to repeat them. I think that a change in the media environment is probably necessary for this to happen.

Robert Parry wrote:

How the NYT Plays with History
Whenever The New York Times or some other mainstream news outlet holds itself out as a paragon of professional journalism – by wagging a finger at some pro-Trump “fake news” or some Internet “conspiracy theory” – I cringe at the self-delusion and hypocrisy.


New York Times building in New York City. (Photo from Wikipedia)
No one hates fake news and fact-free conspiracy theories more than I do, but the sad truth is that the mainstream press has opened the door to such fantasies by losing the confidence of the American people and becoming little more than the mouthpiece for the Establishment, which spins its own self-serving narratives and tells its own lies.

Rather than acting as a watchdog against these deceptions, the Times and its mainstream fellow-travelers have transformed themselves into little more than the Establishment’s apologists and propagandists.

If Iraq is the “enemy,” we are told wild tales about how Iraq’s non-existent WMD is a danger to us all. If Syria is in Washington’s crosshairs, we are given a one-sided account of what’s happening there, black hats for the “regime” and white hats for the “rebels”?

If the State Department is backing a coup in Ukraine to oust an elected leader, we are regaled with tales of his corruption and how overthrowing a democratically chosen leader is somehow “democracy promotion.” Currently, we are getting uncritical stenography on every conceivable charge that the U.S. government lodges against Russia.

Yet, while this crisis in American journalism has grown more severe in recent years, the pattern is not entirely new. It is reflected in how the mainstream media has missed many of the most significant news stories of modern history and has, more often than not, been an obstacle to getting at the truth.

Then, if the evidence finally becomes so overwhelming that continued denials are no longer tenable, the mainstream media tries to reclaim its tattered credibility by seizing on some new tidbit of evidence and declaring that all that went before were just rumors but now we can take the long whispered story seriously — because the Times says so.

For instance, we have the case of Richard Nixon’s sabotage of President Lyndon Johnson’s Vietnam War peace talks in 1968 to give himself a crucial boost in a tight presidential race against Vice President Hubert Humphrey. In “real time” – both as Nixon was executing his maneuver and in the years immediately afterwards – there was reporting by second-tier newspapers and independent journalists into what Johnson privately called Nixon’s “treason,” but the Times and other “newspapers of record” treated the story as little more than a conspiracy theory.

As the years went on and the case of Nixon’s guilt grew stronger and stronger, the story still never managed to cross the threshold for the Big Media to take it seriously.

More...

demfad

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

As for the thread title, bunch of lies imo, as far as the Wikileaks Russia link goes.

The thread title was about interference in general including from the alt-right.
I would consider knowingly propagating fake stories to affect the election as counting.
e.g Breitbarts claim that a leak existed showing that the Clinton emails on her former aides partners laptop (after Comeys letter) contained evidence of child abuse, and other gross criminal acts and corruption. This alt-right knowingly propagating this lie counts as interference in the democratic process.

vetinari

Some amount of Russia defenders in this thread. Clearly it's some massive conspiracy that the US intelligence agencies are saying Russia interfered in the election. You would think if it was a conspiracy that they would have released this before the election.
That doesn't seem to bother the Russian propagandists though. We're living in some strange ****ing times.