MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: jesmu84 on November 04, 2017, 06:10:41 PM
-
How do situations like this effect the US? It's people, media, culture, discussions, politics, etc.
https://www.barstoolsports.com/boston/meet-jenna-abrams-a-completely-fake-russian-troll-farm-product-who-infiltrated-the-american-mainstream
What can we do about it? Should we do anything about it?
-
This thread could be a minefield, but is one that I'd love to see discussed in an open, non-partisan and friendly manner so that we can all learn something and share thoughts ideas.
So maybe we could all try to keep party-politics out of it to the best of our abilities.
With that out of the way.
We have to do something about it, and we as a society are starting to possibly learn the dangers of a highly connected and global world. The internet is where most of us get all our information, to the point that "screen-addiction" is a real and serious problem.
At the same time, we have a growing anti-intellectual movement, where because so much information is available on the internet, many think that they know or can know better than experts. That leads to most peoples beliefs/ideals being derived primarily from random internet sources that are often just obscure bloggers/shock jock type individuals with no actual training or intellectual basis for what they say.
In that type of environment, these types of disinformation campaigns can have profound societal and global impacts. We all look for information that generally confirms what we already largely think to be true.
The internet allows anyone to appear an expert, allowing for unprecedented impact of "confirmation bias", particularly in a culture with a new media that stokes the flames of partisan ideals, through more "editorial" programing than actual news.
All any state-actor needs to do is play into the general mindsets of the peripheries of our political system, that gets your everyday people to propagate these ideas/stories and "confirmation bias," and editorial news takes things the rest of the way.
If we do not address such issues, the "anti-intellectual" slant of our society will grow, and advancement/growth will stall. The question is how do we curtail such actions without impacting the ideals that this nation was founded upon (e.g. freedom of speech/ideas). No easy answer, but it is, in my opinion, the greatest threat facing our nation.
-
Hopefully this will make people more cautious about coorborating prior to responding and/or believing info from these new platforms at face value.
Propaganda is not new - it's just showing up in a new area that had an assigned higher level of trust in the past.
-
Like anything else, the foreign disinformation fed into confirmation bias so typical on the internet. You can find domestic disinformation that feeds your confirmation bias as well. It would be a good thing if we were all a little more discerning, a little more thoughtful, a little less willing to believe any horrible thing about 'the other' that reinforces our bias.
-
Social media propganda, foreign disinformation, fake news, etc. was given an avenue to the American public when the newspaper became no longer viable.
Americans loved the newspaper, but as the internet killed it, too many Americans believed everything on the internet. Too many Americans lost faith in true, unbiased journalism, which drove those people to more radical sources.
We could all greatly benefit from unbiased and uninfluenced reporting from multiple news sources. Unfortunately, I think the trenches currently dug will never allow those sources to exist.
-
Of course it’s a threat. Only racist truth deniers like rocket and Chicos would think otherwise.
-
Of course it’s a threat. Only racist truth deniers like rocket and Chicos would think otherwise.
That's not helping
-
Of course it’s a threat. Only racist truth deniers like rocket and Chicos would think otherwise.
Don't feed their persecution complex.
-
It feeds confirmation biases on both sides. The reason it's so dangerous is because outlets like Facebook have created an algorithm specifically designed to feed us this kind of propaganda. Figure out which kind of BS the individual goes for and social media delivers it to them en masse.
-
Yes, foreign disinformation is a threat.
And it is worsened because far too many believe actual news is "fake news."
-
Of course, but then again we do it against other nations all the time. Are we going to stop it ourselves? This has been going on for a thousand years and isn't going to stop.
Forget foreign information for a second, what about domestic disinformation by a press that is unwilling to always report everything, helping to tilt stories or even spike them if they wish? It happens on both sides.
-
Of course it’s a threat. Only racist truth deniers like rocket and Chicos would think otherwise.
Rocket and Chicos, looks like you two are pegged as racists because someone doesn't agree with you two. Sad that this stuff continues to be allowed here. Dialogue not allowed.
-
I'm sorry, but fake news has been around for decades, and it's not going away anytime soon because the correlation between people who vote in presidential elections and those who continue to fall for fake news has been a accelerating closer to 1 every four years for the past 8 or 9 election cycles (i.e. preceding the Internet).
-
Rocket and Chicos, looks like you two are pegged as racists because someone doesn't agree with you two.
Or it could be because they have posted a lot of bigoted statements.
-
Rocket and Chicos, looks like you two are pegged as racists because someone doesn't agree with you two. Sad that this stuff continues to be allowed here. Dialogue not allowed.
What TinyTim said was unnecessary but are you now referring to yourself in the 3rd person?
-
The biggest problem is that the majority of millennials get their news solely from social media. It is very easy to find polls to prove how many people believe false information.
And it is very funny/pathetic that Chicas continues to pretend.
-
How do situations like this effect the US? It's people, media, culture, discussions, politics, etc.
https://www.barstoolsports.com/boston/meet-jenna-abrams-a-completely-fake-russian-troll-farm-product-who-infiltrated-the-american-mainstream
What can we do about it? Should we do anything about it?
So the Russians catfish-ed the entire country?
Who is laughing at Manti T’eo now?
-
This thread could be a minefield, but is one that I'd love to see discussed in an open, non-partisan and friendly manner so that we can all learn something and share thoughts ideas.
So maybe we could all try to keep party-politics out of it to the best of our abilities.
With that out of the way.
We have to do something about it, and we as a society are starting to possibly learn the dangers of a highly connected and global world. The internet is where most of us get all our information, to the point that "screen-addiction" is a real and serious problem.
At the same time, we have a growing anti-intellectual movement, where because so much information is available on the internet, many think that they know or can know better than experts. That leads to most peoples beliefs/ideals being derived primarily from random internet sources that are often just obscure bloggers/shock jock type individuals with no actual training or intellectual basis for what they say.
In that type of environment, these types of disinformation campaigns can have profound societal and global impacts. We all look for information that generally confirms what we already largely think to be true.
The internet allows anyone to appear an expert, allowing for unprecedented impact of "confirmation bias", particularly in a culture with a new media that stokes the flames of partisan ideals, through more "editorial" programing than actual news.
All any state-actor needs to do is play into the general mindsets of the peripheries of our political system, that gets your everyday people to propagate these ideas/stories and "confirmation bias," and editorial news takes things the rest of the way.
If we do not address such issues, the "anti-intellectual" slant of our society will grow, and advancement/growth will stall. The question is how do we curtail such actions without impacting the ideals that this nation was founded upon (e.g. freedom of speech/ideas). No easy answer, but it is, in my opinion, the greatest threat facing our nation.
I agree with you about the devaluing of experts. But it is not unique to the US.
Last year during the BRexit debate UK Justice Secretary (Like our Attorney General) Michael Gove, who was pro-BRexit, said the line that defined the entire debate.
Britain has had enough of experts, says Gove
https://www.ft.com/content/3be49734-29cb-11e6-83e4-abc22d5d108c
Which sparked this debate ...
Michael Gove debates top academic over the value of 'experts'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/15/watch-live-michael-gove-goes-head-head-academic-debate-value/
As you know BRexit passed and all the caterwauling about how the UK economy would crumble if it passed did not happen. The experts were wrong.
Also “experts” in economics have taken a might body blow for failing to see the 2008 financial crisis. The federal Reserve’s stature may have taken a permanent hit.
This problem is a lot of expertise has been exposed as nothing more than self-serving hyper-partisan propaganda. so now everyone assumes that all expertise hyper-partisan propaganda.
Then a few weeks ago John McCain exposed himself in a speech with this line ...
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/16/john-mccain-nationalism-constitution-243848
“To fear the world we have organized and led for three-quarters of a century, to abandon the ideals we have advanced around the globe, to refuse the obligations of international leadership and our duty to remain ‘the last best hope of earth’ for the sake of some half-baked, spurious nationalism cooked up by people who would rather find scapegoats than solve problems,” McCain said, “is as unpatriotic as an attachment to any other tired dogma of the past that Americans consigned to the ash heap of history.”
What an arrogant statement. ‘We” are in charge and how dare anyone question our motivations or what we have done.
This is the problem with the climate change debate. Maybe all the science on climate change is 100% correct, but coming from hyper partisan academia, were opposing viewpoints are discouraged, devalues it in the eyes of many.
What expertise needs to regain is the perception that it is in the pursuit of truth no matter where it takes it. Today it’s just a political agenda masqueraded as expertise.
-
Of course, but then again we do it against other nations all the time. Are we going to stop it ourselves? This has been going on for a thousand years and isn't going to stop.
Forget foreign information for a second, what about domestic disinformation by a press that is unwilling to always report everything, helping to tilt stories or even spike them if they wish? It happens on both sides.
You are truly the king of the strawmen.
-
I agree with you about the devaluing of experts. But it is not unique to the US.
Last year during the BRexit debate UK Justice Secretary (Like our Attorney General) Michael Gove, who was pro-BRexit, said the line that defined the entire debate.
Britain has had enough of experts, says Gove
https://www.ft.com/content/3be49734-29cb-11e6-83e4-abc22d5d108c
Which sparked this debate ...
Michael Gove debates top academic over the value of 'experts'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/15/watch-live-michael-gove-goes-head-head-academic-debate-value/
As you know BRexit passed and all the caterwauling about how the UK economy would crumble if it passed did not happen. The experts were wrong.
Also “experts” in economics have taken a might body blow for failing to see the 2008 financial crisis. The federal Reserve’s stature may have taken a permanent hit.
This problem is a lot of expertise has been exposed as nothing more than self-serving hyper-partisan propaganda. so now everyone assumes that all expertise hyper-partisan propaganda.
Then a few weeks ago John McCain exposed himself in a speech with this line ...
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/16/john-mccain-nationalism-constitution-243848
“To fear the world we have organized and led for three-quarters of a century, to abandon the ideals we have advanced around the globe, to refuse the obligations of international leadership and our duty to remain ‘the last best hope of earth’ for the sake of some half-baked, spurious nationalism cooked up by people who would rather find scapegoats than solve problems,” McCain said, “is as unpatriotic as an attachment to any other tired dogma of the past that Americans consigned to the ash heap of history.”
What an arrogant statement. ‘We” are in charge and how dare anyone question our motivations or what we have done.
This is the problem with the climate change debate. Maybe all the science on climate change is 100% correct, but coming from hyper partisan academia, were opposing viewpoints are discouraged, devalues it in the eyes of many.
What expertise needs to regain is the perception that it is in the pursuit of truth no matter where it takes it. Today it’s just a political agenda masqueraded as expertise.
Every time you post, I become more convinced you are in a Moscow basement. You live for and thrive on disinformation.
-
The biggest problem is that the majority of millennials get their news solely from social media. It is very easy to find polls to prove how many people believe false information.
And it is very funny/pathetic that Chicas continues to pretend.
I wouldn't limit that to millennials. I can't begin to tell you how much stuff my parents and their friends (mid 60s) read on Facebook and pass on as facts.
-
Of course, but then again we do it against other nations all the time. Are we going to stop it ourselves? This has been going on for a thousand years and isn't going to stop.
Forget foreign information for a second, what about domestic disinformation by a press that is unwilling to always report everything, helping to tilt stories or even spike them if they wish? It happens on both sides.
100% agree that domestic media has bias in their stories/reporting.
However, if you're equating that with a foreign power trying to manipulate our populace and shape our government/policy, I think that's nuts. There is no equivalency there.
-
I wouldn't limit that to millennials. I can't begin to tell you how much stuff my parents and their friends (mid 60s) read on Facebook and pass on as facts.
I think the voting demographics in this particular Russian situation would push the needle towards boomers far more than millennials.
-
There there are the gatekeepers. We put all this power into the hands of Google, Facebook, Twitter. Why? They have enormous control.
Anyone watch the Senate hearings last week with these Silicon Valley giants? Case in point, Twitter admitted (pages 6 and 7) to suppressing hashtags around the DNC leaks. https://www.lgraham.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/4766f54d-d433-4055-9f3d-c94f97eeb1c0/testimony-of-sean-edgett-acting-general-counsel-twitter.pdf
Those leaks turned out to be true, 48% were suppressed for TRUTHFUL information. Did we know if it was truthful at the time? Good question. Will they act in the same way if it was a different ideology in play? Afterall, this is the same social media site that a disgruntled employee took down the twitter account of the most powerful person in the world the other day.
Social media is the vehicle in which information (truthful and non-truthful) spreads in a matter of seconds around the world. Who are the gatekeepers? What do they believe? What do they suppress or accentuate?
Scary stuff
-
You are truly the king of the strawmen.
Stories are spiked all the time, that is not a strawman. Harvey Weinstein?
You can watch any number of hidden camera footage of media types admitting to doing so, books on the subject, or just pay attention. Both sides do it. Are you saying Fox News digs hard into conservative politics to expose them? How about MSNBC on liberals politics?
Examples a plenty in this article from last week. Spiked stories. No strawman.
Excerpt from the article, worth the read.
"Over the years managers asked me to to soften or remove information from stories — or “held” stories — related to the NFL, the American Red Cross, Ford Motor Company, People to People, Feed the Children, the government, a college football player, Goldman Sachs and Boeing, to name but a few. (This implies no illegal activity or wrongdoing on anyone’s part; it simply raises ethical questions within the journalism industry.)
If nothing else, they hope to wear you down. Or better yet, wear down your bosses so that they seek to avoid the stories altogether."
http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/354754-weinstein-allegations-are-not-the-first-stories-spiked-by-media
-
There there are the gatekeepers. We put all this power into the hands of Google, Facebook, Twitter. Why? They have enormous control.
Anyone watch the Senate hearings last week with these Silicon Valley giants? Case in point, Twitter admitted (pages 6 and 7) to suppressing hashtags around the DNC leaks. https://www.lgraham.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/4766f54d-d433-4055-9f3d-c94f97eeb1c0/testimony-of-sean-edgett-acting-general-counsel-twitter.pdf
Those leaks turned out to be true, 48% were suppressed for TRUTHFUL information. Did we know if it was truthful at the time? Good question. Will they act in the same way if it was a different ideology in play? Afterall, this is the same social media site that a disgruntled employee took down the twitter account of the most powerful person in the world the other day.
Social media is the vehicle in which information (truthful and non-truthful) spreads in a matter of seconds around the world. Who are the gatekeepers? What do they believe? What do they suppress or accentuate?
Scary stuff
Those tweets were not filtered out because they weren't true. They were filtered out because they were generated by automated spam bots. "These steps were part of our general efforts at the time to fight automation and spam on our platform across all areas."
I mean, the testimony said that there were 426,000 tweets with the #podestaemails hashtag. They filtered out a quarter of them because Twitter believed them to be spam. That still left 300,000 tweets.
So you really think it's "scary" that Twitter filters out repetitive, auto-generated tweets that are just spam?
-
Stories are spiked all the time, that is not a strawman. You can watch any number of hidden camera footage of media types admitting to doing so, books on the subject, or just pay attention. Both sides do it. Are you saying Fox News digs hard into conservative politics to expose them? How about MSNBC on liberals politics?
I'm saying that you are the king of changing the subject to fit your narrative.
-
100% agree that domestic media has bias in their stories/reporting.
However, if you're equating that with a foreign power trying to manipulate our populace and shape our government/policy, I think that's nuts. There is no equivalency there.
We influence other nations all the time. Voice of America. Dropping leaflets. Planting stories with specific journalists.
About 25% of our populace thinks 9/11 was an inside job and that speaks volumes about our populace with no help from any foreign gov't.
When our own internal information gathers and disseminators are so polarized there is an absolute equivalency, and a strong one at that. Why did it take the NY Times two days this week to read about an absolute bombshell that the head of the DNC was considering putting Biden on the ticket because she believed her party rigged the election? Why did it only take other outlets less than an hour? CBS, NBC, ABC also didn't cover in their evening news on Thursday despite story coming out 14 hours earlier. Remember a certain POTUS and an intern, that story was spiked and admitted to be spiked. It took an internet guy named Matt to publish it.
How many Harvey Weinstein stories were spiked in the last 10 years? We already know of three, including two by the NY Times. Why are people naive on this? Yet I'm the king of Strawmen for stating the obvious?
I can give examples on the other side as well. Spiking stories is just as problematic and producing false stories and it is WILLFULLY done to control the message or limit damage. That's how polarized we are. We have a domestic problem every bit as much as a foreign one.
-
Every time you post, I become more convinced you are in a Moscow basement. You live for and thrive on disinformation.
Why ... are you that uncomfortable with anyone that does not think the way you do
-
100% agree that domestic media has bias in their stories/reporting.
However, if you're equating that with a foreign power trying to manipulate our populace and shape our government/policy, I think that's nuts. There is no equivalency there.
Foreign influence is a problem ... always has been and always will be.
But the disinformation spread by Infowars, Vox, Moveon and the rest (on the left and right) is the real problem.
-
Those tweets were not filtered out because they weren't true. They were filtered out because they were generated by automated spam bots. "These steps were part of our general efforts at the time to fight automation and spam on our platform across all areas."
I mean, the testimony said that there were 426,000 tweets with the #podestaemails hashtag. They filtered out a quarter of them because Twitter believed them to be spam. That still left 300,000 tweets.
So you really think it's "scary" that Twitter filters out repetitive, auto-generated tweets that are just spam?
Twitter is not SURE they are spam, they guessed that to be the case and ADMITTED that real people were also purged. They don't have the ability to tell with pure accuracy. More importantly, the power they have in deciding what is purged and not, which accounts are suspended or not, what is trending or not?
There were several analysis's done during the election that showed suppression. That is scary.
-
We influence other nations all the time. Voice of America. Dropping leaflets. Planting stories with specific journalists.
About 25% of our populace thinks 9/11 was an inside job and that speaks volumes about our populace with no help from any foreign gov't.
When our own internal information gathers and disseminators are so polarized there is an absolute equivalency, and a strong one at that. Why did it take the NY Times two days this week to read about an absolute bombshell that the head of the DNC was considering putting Biden on the ticket because she believed her party rigged the election? Why did it only take other outlets less than an hour? CBS, NBC, ABC also didn't cover in their evening news on Thursday despite story coming out 14 hours earlier. Remember a certain POTUS and an intern, that story was spiked and admitted to be spiked. It took an internet guy named Matt to publish it.
How many Harvey Weinstein stories were spiked in the last 10 years? We already know of three, including two by the NY Times. Why are people naive on this? Yet I'm the king of Strawmen for stating the obvious?
I can give examples on the other side as well. Spiking stories is just as problematic and producing false stories and it is WILLFULLY done to control the message or limit damage. That's how polarized we are. We have a domestic problem every bit as much as a foreign one.
I just want to clarify. You believe a foreign power influencing our democracy is the same as domestic financially influenced, and therefore biased, media reporting?
If that is actually your position here, we will never agree. I find an outside power trying to alter the very fabric of the US as a far greater problem. And it's okay that we don't agree. Thanks for providing your perspective
-
Twitter is not SURE they are spam, they guessed that to be the case and ADMITTED that real people were also purged. They don't have the ability to tell with pure accuracy. More importantly, the power they have in deciding what is purged and not, which accounts are suspended or not, what is trending or not?
There were several analysis's done during the election that showed suppression. That is scary.
Dude, I provided the quotes and data from the portion that *you* provided. I also pointed out that your assertion that "those leaks turned out to be true" wasn't relevant because that point wasn't in contention.
And of course no filter is perfect. No spam filter is. There is nothing "scary" about it.
-
The last thing I want to do is come off as agreeing with Scoop's large adult prodigal son. And I don't want to touch the comparison to US News outlets because that's just obsfucation.
But I do feel like, at least at this early stage, we're acting from outrage and hyperbole as much as from measured reason. Yes, the notion of foreign states taking steps to f*ck with us as we try to compare candidates and vote is gross. But at the same time, do we have (i) a framework of laws in place that prevent that specific behavior, and (ii) a practical mechanism to enforce those laws, even domestically? Between the trash heap of attempts at campaign finance reform, the impact of Citizens United, etc., our framework for how elections operate is a damn mess.
If US citizens had done the same things as the Russians clearly did, what US contracts/laws would they have violated? Just private terms of service with the social media providers? Libel laws? Are there also applicable federal campaign laws? (I honestly don't know enough about this). If its federal campaign law, are those laws written with the internet in mind, and do we have an enforcement agency that can enforce them? I feel like we need to get our crap a little straighter before forming a useful opinion on how to deal with the Russians, even if their activity was clearly deviant.
-
The last thing I want to do is come off as agreeing with Scoop's large adult prodigal son. And I don't want to touch the comparison to US News outlets because that's just obsfucation.
But I do feel like, at least at this early stage, we're acting from outrage and hyperbole as much as from measured reason. Yes, the notion of foreign states taking steps to f*ck with us as we try to compare candidates and vote is gross. But at the same time, do we have (i) a framework of laws in place that prevent that specific behavior, and (ii) a practical mechanism to enforce those laws, even domestically? Between the trash heap of attempts at campaign finance reform, the impact of Citizens United, etc., our framework for how elections operate is a damn mess.
If US citizens had done the same things as the Russians clearly did, what US contracts/laws would they have violated? Just private terms of service with the social media providers? Libel laws? Are there also applicable federal campaign laws? (I honestly don't know enough about this). If its federal campaign law, are those laws written with the internet in mind, and do we have an enforcement agency that can enforce them? I feel like we need to get our crap a little straighter before forming a useful opinion on how to deal with the Russians, even if their activity was clearly deviant.
Reasonable questions.
And it's OK if you agree with him on something. He won't be able to respond, anyway, because he's been banned, you know.
He even taunts the mods with his new screen name.
-
And it is very funny/pathetic that Chicas continues to pretend.
He's obviously as emotionally disturbed as you always said he was. Mental illness is no joke but its nice to be right about things.
-
Foreign influence is a problem ... always has been and always will be.
But the disinformation spread by Infowars, Vox, Moveon and the rest (on the left and right) is the real problem.
It is foreign influence that is fueling much of what you define as "the real problem". Foreign state actors are the ones creating and propagating fake news stories that these entities pick up.
But, with that said, I agree with you on these sites being serious problems. That includes things like "natural news" and the ilk that propagate fake health care ideas and the homeopathic/antivax mentalities.
A good example of the problem is this:
https://www.snopes.com/texas-church-shooter-antifa/ (https://www.snopes.com/texas-church-shooter-antifa/)
That fake news was put out so fast after such a tragedy is horrifying, and if you don't think that some of these stories were not created by foreign-state actors, you are not aware of what is going on.
-
It is foreign influence that is fueling much of what you define as "the real problem". Foreign state actors are the ones creating and propagating fake news stories that these entities pick up.
But, with that said, I agree with you on these sites being serious problems. That includes things like "natural news" and the ilk that propagate fake health care ideas and the homeopathic/antivax mentalities.
A good example of the problem is this:
https://www.snopes.com/texas-church-shooter-antifa/ (https://www.snopes.com/texas-church-shooter-antifa/)
That fake news was put out so fast after such a tragedy is horrifying, and if you don't think that some of these stories were not created by foreign-state actors, you are not aware of what is going on.
I agree that foreign actors are probably behind some of this. But isn't your post the answer ... sites like Snopes and others that country-balance it?
Otherwise, how do you regulate this without tearing up the Bill of Rights in the process?
-
I agree that foreign actors are probably behind some of this. But isn't your post the answer ... sites like Snopes and others that country-balance it?
Otherwise, how do you regulate this without tearing up the Bill of Rights in the process?
The bolded is the question, and I don't have a good answer.
Places like Snopes should be an answer, but people on the right now believe that Snopes is a leftwing conspiracy, and are lying about things like the one I posted above. Why?? Because their random Facebook feeds say otherwise...largely operated by bots and foreign-state actors.
-
Anyone that doesn't think that the Russians, and before them the Soviets, have been engaged in disinformation campaigns against the US and the West for the last century is blind to the history of the 20th century and the Cold War.
By the same notion, the US and the CIA have been doing the same thing for almost as long.
-
I just want to clarify. You believe a foreign power influencing our democracy is the same as domestic financially influenced, and therefore biased, media reporting?
If that is actually your position here, we will never agree. I find an outside power trying to alter the very fabric of the US as a far greater problem. And it's okay that we don't agree. Thanks for providing your perspective
I think foreign influence is BAU and been going on for thousands of years. Pick your time period, pick your empire. We do it, they do it. Do you think it is a great problem when we do it?
My concerns with the media is spiking stories and the power given to enhance, embellish, spike. Let's cut to the chase. You are greatly concerned about Facebook ads or other disinformation that can sway an election. Then why wouldn't you be also concerned about our own domestic media picking and choosing what to report, which can also sway an election? How many undercover videos will it take of people at CNN, the Times, Fox and elsewhere to convince folks that a free press isn't a free press, but bought and paid for to deliver news to preidentified targeted users. People live in a bubble and confirmation bias is big business.
-
Anyone that doesn't think that the Russians, and before them the Soviets, have been engaged in disinformation campaigns against the US and the West for the last century is blind to the history of the 20th century and the Cold War.
By the same notion, the US and the CIA have been doing the same thing for almost as long.
There are lots of things that have gone on "for so long" but I'm not sure that's a good rationalization because they can now be "weaponized" by the accessibility of social media.
Disclosure: I don't claim to have a solution.
-
Folks, may I remind you there is something called the First Amendment to the Constitution. NO LAW means NO LAW. The Supreme Court has interpreted the limits of the government's action to restrain media to be clear and present danger in national security and pornography. Even the power to control porn has been severely limited.
As bad as the internet can be and as misinformed as we can sometimes be, I'd want it no other way.
Internet ignorance is the porn of the new millennium. We all want it stopped but we can't agree on what we should be stopping. Years ago when I was a Journalism student, there was debate over the government's ability to restrain the publication and distribution of what was thought to be porn. Effectively, the courts took the position that no matter how raunchy something was, there is a right to disseminate under the first amendment.
We can see even now what could happen if we forget we have a first amendment. Almost any college campus in the United States today is effectively self-censoring controversial or contrary speakers and ideas. If this power is granted to the government in the interest of curbing foreign internet influence, how long will it be before groups of snowflakes curb legitimate political discourse?
As much as I deplore true hateful speech, an expanding notion of hate speech and a national full of snowflakes in government controlling the media is "just a bit" outlandish.
-
Folks, may I remind you there is something called the First Amendment to the Constitution. NO LAW means NO LAW. The Supreme Court has interpreted the limits of the government's action to restrain media to be clear and present danger in national security and pornography. Even the power to control porn has been severely limited.
As bad as the internet can be and as misinformed as we can sometimes be, I'd want it no other way.
Internet ignorance is the porn of the new millennium. We all want it stopped but we can't agree on what we should be stopping. Years ago when I was a Journalism student, there was debate over the government's ability to restrain the publication and distribution of what was thought to be porn. Effectively, the courts took the position that no matter how raunchy something was, there is a right to disseminate under the first amendment.
We can see even now what could happen if we forget we have a first amendment. Almost any college campus in the United States today is effectively self-censoring controversial or contrary speakers and ideas. If this power is granted to the government in the interest of curbing foreign internet influence, how long will it be before groups of snowflakes curb legitimate political discourse?
As much as I deplore true hateful speech, an expanding notion of hate speech and a national full of snowflakes in government controlling the media is "just a bit" outlandish.
I'm not wading into the rest of your post because there's a lot of misinformation and myths. But on the bolded, as much as people publicly say they want to get rid of porn, very few actually mean it. Its a multi-trillion dollar business with thousands of human right violations and unfair labor practices that directly funds modern day slavery, human trafficking, and child sex rings. Despite all this, a vast majority of American men and a significant population of American women watch it regularly, but in secret.
-
I'm not wading into the rest of your post because there's a lot of misinformation and myths. But on the bolded, as much as people publicly say they want to get rid of porn, very few actually mean it. Its a multi-trillion dollar business with thousands of human right violations and unfair labor practices that directly funds modern day slavery, human trafficking, and child sex rings. Despite all this, a vast majority of American men and a significant population of American women watch it regularly, but in secret.
So you avoid the misinformation and myths you don't agree with but then go on to create a few of your own?
-
So you avoid the misinformation and myths you don't agree with but then go on to create a few of your own?
What did I say that is misinformation or a myth?
-
Folks, may I remind you there is something called the First Amendment to the Constitution. NO LAW means NO LAW. The Supreme Court has interpreted the limits of the government's action to restrain media to be clear and present danger in national security and pornography. Even the power to control porn has been severely limited.
As bad as the internet can be and as misinformed as we can sometimes be, I'd want it no other way.
Internet ignorance is the porn of the new millennium. We all want it stopped but we can't agree on what we should be stopping. Years ago when I was a Journalism student, there was debate over the government's ability to restrain the publication and distribution of what was thought to be porn. Effectively, the courts took the position that no matter how raunchy something was, there is a right to disseminate under the first amendment.
We can see even now what could happen if we forget we have a first amendment. Almost any college campus in the United States today is effectively self-censoring controversial or contrary speakers and ideas. If this power is granted to the government in the interest of curbing foreign internet influence, how long will it be before groups of snowflakes curb legitimate political discourse?
As much as I deplore true hateful speech, an expanding notion of hate speech and a national full of snowflakes in government controlling the media is "just a bit" outlandish.
+ TAX
Is the gov't going to outlaw user created memes on social media? Good luck with that. Or will those that cry about them just call the other side Bots or Russian Trolls as they do today?
The stifling of speech, labeling everything hateful or racist to quell it only because they don't agree with it. It is becoming Orwellian and that's just fine for some. Sadly.
-
What did I say that is misinformation or a myth?
+1
Nothing even controversial in that post.
-
+ TAX
Is the gov't going to outlaw user created memes on social media? Good luck with that. Or will those that cry about them just call the other side Bots or Russian Trolls as they do today?
The stifling of speech, labeling everything hateful or racist to quell it only because they don't agree with it. It is becoming Orwellian and that's just fine for some. Sadly.
Article in today's WSJ backing you up on this Banny.
-
In before Wocky goes"WTF
-
Article in today's WSJ backing you up on this Banny.
Man. The moral equivalency here is so rich. Social media memes vs foreign interference in a US election.
So rich
-
What did I say that is misinformation or a myth?
I bolded it for your convenience. The "porn" (i.e. adult entertainment) industry is highly regulated and does not condone slavery, trafficking and child sex rings.
To be clear, Subway Jared is not part of the adult entertainment industry. Craigslist escorts are not part of the adult entertainment industry. Trafficked Thai hookers are not part of the adult entertainment industry. You don't have to agree with what these people do, but that doesn't justify painting everyone who takes their clothes off for the enjoyment of others with the same brush.
-
I bolded it for your convenience. The "porn" (i.e. adult entertainment) industry is highly regulated and does not condone slavery, trafficking and child sex rings.
There is a legitimate, responsible, and regulated porn industry that handles things professionally and allows honesty in the industry. But that is not the entirety of the porn that's out there, especially when it comes to the free domains.
-
There is a legitimate, responsible, and regulated porn industry that handles things professionally and allows honesty in the industry. But that is not the entirety of the porn that's out there, especially when it comes to the free domains.
But, saying what TAMU said, is like saying the pharmaceutical industry promotes gun violence, weapons trafficking, gangs etc., because of the illegal drug trade.
Although both groups sell drugs, saying your local meth dealer is part of the pharmaceutical industry, and hence the pharmaceutical industry promotes all these negatives, is just not accurate.
People don't make that criticism of pharma; but they do for the legitimate well regulated porn industry. Largely because of societal norms and the myth that the two industries are one and the same.
-
But, saying what TAMU said, is like saying the pharmaceutical industry promotes gun violence, weapons trafficking, gangs etc., because of the illegal drug trade.
Although both groups sell drugs, saying your local meth dealer is part of the pharmaceutical industry, and hence the pharmaceutical industry promotes all these negatives, is just not accurate.
People don't make that criticism of pharma; but they do for the legitimate well regulated porn industry. Largely because of societal norms and the myth that the two industries are one and the same.
First, let's go back to his post, as Benny quoted it:
I'm not wading into the rest of your post because there's a lot of misinformation and myths. But on the bolded, as much as people publicly say they want to get rid of porn, very few actually mean it. Its a multi-trillion dollar business with thousands of human right violations and unfair labor practices that directly funds modern day slavery, human trafficking, and child sex rings. Despite all this, a vast majority of American men and a significant population of American women watch it regularly, but in secret.
I don't see anything there that is controversial. Porn is a multi-trillion dollar business with all the violations he mentioned. Yes, there is a legitimate industry, but the proliferation of pornography on the internet has led to all the issues he outlined. He could've gone into more detail, I suppose, but there's nothing there that's inaccurate or even misleading.
And comparing it to Big Pharma...that's dicey. Working in a healthcare field, I absolutely hold Big Pharma to blame for the street drug problems we have today and feel that the heroin epidemic is largely a result of actions deliberately taken by the pharmaceutical industry. They created this dependency issue and they don't get a pass on the crime that is part of the fallout of their actions.
I would love to see figures on the consumption of porn in our society to see what percentages come from the legitimate, well-regulated portion of the industry. I would be surprised if it is even close to 50%.
-
I bolded it for your convenience. The "porn" (i.e. adult entertainment) industry is highly regulated and does not condone slavery, trafficking and child sex rings.
To be clear, Subway Jared is not part of the adult entertainment industry. Craigslist escorts are not part of the adult entertainment industry. Trafficked Thai hookers are not part of the adult entertainment industry. You don't have to agree with what these people do, but that doesn't justify painting everyone who takes their clothes off for the enjoyment of others with the same brush.
I didn't say the adult entertainment industry. I said the porn industry. Adult entertainment in the sense that you are thinking of is just one small piece of the pornographic puzzle. If you think all the videos on pornhub.com come from the "highly regulated adult entertainment industry" you are very mistaken. Many of the women (and some of the men) in those videos are victims of human trafficking. And while they claim to moderate the ages of the people in the videos, they don't, not really. They do enough to make sure they are not liable if it turns someone in the video is underage but not enough to prevent it. Teen is the most common search term on pornhub. They know what their audience wants.
Pornhub.com gets 64 million viewers a day. And that's just one site. There are hundreds of sites just like it. Unless you avoid sites like these and stick exclusively to "brand name" porn, you are directly funding human trafficking, modern day slavery, and child sex rings. Even sticking exclusively to "brand name" porn only limits the damage, it doesn't stop it. Porn stars are usually represented by "agents" or "talent managers." Some of these might be legit, others are pimps who use rape, drugs, and physical violence to control their "talent." The "brand name" studio might be highly regulated but there is little to no regulation of these "talent managers" which the studio regularly works with.
-
But, saying what TAMU said, is like saying the pharmaceutical industry promotes gun violence, weapons trafficking, gangs etc., because of the illegal drug trade.
Although both groups sell drugs, saying your local meth dealer is part of the pharmaceutical industry, and hence the pharmaceutical industry promotes all these negatives, is just not accurate.
People don't make that criticism of pharma; but they do for the legitimate well regulated porn industry. Largely because of societal norms and the myth that the two industries are one and the same.
Not close to the same thing. Pornhub (or youporn, or youjizz...insert your favorite free porn site here) is 100% legal in the USA. Many of the videos on pornhub feature victims of human trafficking and underage boys and girls. Clicks and views is the currency of these site. People may not realize it, but they are paying to see videos of human trafficking victims and underage boys and girls. It is a much more direct link than "big pharma supports gangs"
-
Didn't anticipate a porn thread on scoop.
-
I think foreign influence is BAU and been going on for thousands of years. Pick your time period, pick your empire. We do it, they do it. Do you think it is a great problem when we do it?
I love that Chico's has stooped so low that he's drawing moral equivalencies between Voice of America and a tyrannical, hostile government trying influence our free elections and foment racial hostility within our borders.
Have you left no sense of decency, sir?
-
Is foreign disinformation a threat? Not as much as domestic disinformation!
I highly recommend this past Sunday's John Oliver show for anybody who hasn't seen it.
-
First, let's go back to his post, as Benny quoted it:
I don't see anything there that is controversial. Porn is a multi-trillion dollar business with all the violations he mentioned. Yes, there is a legitimate industry, but the proliferation of pornography on the internet has led to all the issues he outlined. He could've gone into more detail, I suppose, but there's nothing there that's inaccurate or even misleading.
And comparing it to Big Pharma...that's dicey. Working in a healthcare field, I absolutely hold Big Pharma to blame for the street drug problems we have today and feel that the heroin epidemic is largely a result of actions deliberately taken by the pharmaceutical industry. They created this dependency issue and they don't get a pass on the crime that is part of the fallout of their actions.
I would love to see figures on the consumption of porn in our society to see what percentages come from the legitimate, well-regulated portion of the industry. I would be surprised if it is even close to 50%.
You are correct sir. My statement was misrepresenting his statement (which was accurate). My apologies to the gentleman from College Station.
-
I didn't say the adult entertainment industry. I said the porn industry. Adult entertainment in the sense that you are thinking of is just one small piece of the pornographic puzzle. If you think all the videos on pornhub.com come from the "highly regulated adult entertainment industry" you are very mistaken. Many of the women (and some of the men) in those videos are victims of human trafficking. And while they claim to moderate the ages of the people in the videos, they don't, not really. They do enough to make sure they are not liable if it turns someone in the video is underage but not enough to prevent it. Teen is the most common search term on pornhub. They know what their audience wants.
Pornhub.com gets 64 million viewers a day. And that's just one site. There are hundreds of sites just like it. Unless you avoid sites like these and stick exclusively to "brand name" porn, you are directly funding human trafficking, modern day slavery, and child sex rings. Even sticking exclusively to "brand name" porn only limits the damage, it doesn't stop it. Porn stars are usually represented by "agents" or "talent managers." Some of these might be legit, others are pimps who use rape, drugs, and physical violence to control their "talent." The "brand name" studio might be highly regulated but there is little to no regulation of these "talent managers" which the studio regularly works with.
As you’re defining it, there’s no such thing as the “porn industry” just as there’s no such thing as the “drug industry” as in forgetful’s hypothetical. I understand what you’re trying to say, but to my original point, you’re painting a lot of different people with one broad brush stroke... which at it’s very core, is pretty much misinformation and/or promotion of a myth, at best. I’m certainly not discounting the original point you were trying to make, but as Brew will probably attest, fighting fire with fire is a sh/tty way to win the day.
-
As you’re defining it, there’s no such thing as the “porn industry” just as there’s no such thing as the “drug industry” as in forgetful’s hypothetical. I understand what you’re trying to say, but to my original point, you’re painting a lot of different people with one broad brush stroke... which at it’s very core, is pretty much misinformation and/or promotion of a myth, at best. I’m certainly not discounting the original point you were trying to make, but as Brew will probably attest, fighting fire with fire is a sh/tty way to win the day.
Allow me to simplify it. Watching porn at sites such as youporn, pornhub, youjizz, xvideo, etc...which is the vast majority of the porn industry in today's world, directly funds human trafficking, modern day slavery, and child sex rings.
-
Apparently, yes, it is a threat. And illegal
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/02/16/politics/mueller-russia-indictments-election-interference/index.html
-
Not a surprise. Still collecting the little fish. Big fish and ultimately a constitutional crisis still to come.
-
Not a surprise. Still collecting the little fish. Big fish and ultimately a constitutional crisis still to come.
I don't think so. They may grab some low level guys, but IMO what Mueller has done is point the finger specifically at Russia to avoid a constitutional crisis.
-
We'll see. Going to sit back and watch.
-
And this. https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/now-available-more-200-000-deleted-russian-troll-tweets-n844731?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma
Note, I believe Facebook does this as well. Probably other social media accounts.
-
The Russians and the Chinese know our achilles heel. The Democrats and Republicans will do anything to put party above country. Half the the country thinks Trump is Putin's puppet and the other half believes the rule of law applies to anyone who is not a high ranking Democrat. I have seen the enemy and it is us.
-
I don't think so. They may grab some low level guys, but IMO what Mueller has done is point the finger specifically at Russia to avoid a constitutional crisis.
People on both sides of the aisle who know Bob Mueller have been adamant that he will go where the evidence takes him. So if the evidence takes him to a place that could lead to a constitutional crisis, I suspect that is where we will go.
-
It feeds confirmation biases on both sides. The reason it's so dangerous is because outlets like Facebook have created an algorithm specifically designed to feed us this kind of propaganda. Figure out which kind of BS the individual goes for and social media delivers it to them en masse.
You are correct, but there is another reason it is so dangerous. Too many people - including a majority of young people - now get their news on the same platforms that have allowed these "terrorists" to use their sites to spread dis-information.
Zuckerberg rakes in his BILLIONS while allowing foreign cyber-terrorists to use his site as a delivery vehicle.
-
Apparently, yes, it is a threat. And illegal
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/02/16/politics/mueller-russia-indictments-election-interference/index.html
Actually not illegal ... did you notice what they were indicted on? Bank fraud, mail fraud and 5 of the 8 counts were for "aggressive identity theft." Also, note that none of them were American citizens.
Americans are protected by the first amendment which essentially allows to pretend to be someone and then lie through your teeth about it. That is why all they could do is indict on "process crimes" (instead of making up names, they stole actual identities and illegally set up bank accounts). They did not break laws by saying nasty things about Hillary.
If what they did is illegal, how many years are the mods of this board getting? Becuase we essentially do the same thing here. How many people are going to prison for impersonating Chicos?
Finally, today's indictment's essentially are the end of this process. Everyone indicted is currently in Russia. Unless Putin wants to extradite them, and assume the odds of that are between 0% and 0%, there is nothing more to this story. No trial, no defense. So no rolling these guys to cop a plea and give up bigger fish. They are laughing their ass of at us in Moscow.
-
It is the end of the story as far as establishing that a grand jury believes that Russia influenced the 2016 election. Mueller's investigation is nowhere near over.
-
It is the end of the story as far as establishing that a grand jury believes that Russia influenced the 2016 election. Mueller's investigation is nowhere near over.
Yes, Mueller likes money and his friends so they will continue to waste time at 300% their normal rate (that is what special prosecutors get) but remember this ...
* Collusion is not a crime. Trump could say he and Vlad planned the entire thing. That is not against the law. Yes, this is a political problem, but it is not criminal.
* The idea that a bunch of Facebook posts turned a US election makes anyone that thinks Obama is Kenyan look reasonable. I cannot believe that supposedly educated people think that after a billion dollars of advertising thousands of hours of Mainstream coverage and entire forest cut down for print media to cover the election, $54 of Facebook advertising that contains lies turned the state of Wisconsin. How can anyone take such fantasy as serious?
* And again, lying on facebook is not a crime.
* The closest thing we have to a Crime is the Clinton Campaign paying for the Dossier and passing it off as legit intel.
* If Comey was this man of high reputation, he is now a sorry joke. Mueller is trying to make Comey look reasonable. Michael Flynn pleaded GUILTY and is awaiting sentencing. Mueller keeps putting off his sentencing because the texts and stories are weakening his case (Struck texted Page and said he did not think Flynn was lying ... oops!) Mueller is so bloody incompetent he cannot convict a guy that pleaded guilty!
-
ROFL.
-
ROFL.
me too
-
Yes, Mueller likes money and his friends so they will continue to waste time at 300% their normal rate (that is what special prosecutors get) but remember this ...
Interesting. I have no idea what US Attorneys, the FBI Director, or special prosecutors make. Do you have a link or other evidence that supports this statement?
ReviewingMueller's resume, the statement that he took this job for, and is motivated by, the desire to make money seems pretty absurd.
-
Tugg doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who will support what he says when called on, so I spent a few minutes researching his statement myself.
Mueller made several million a year in private practice. As Special Prosecutor he will get paid a couple of hundred thousand per year.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-09/mueller-left-millions-in-salary-speeches-to-lead-russia-probe
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/08/robert-mueller-counsel-financial-records-241414
https://www.quora.com/How-much-will-Robert-Mueller-be-paid-as-Special-Counsel-to-investigate-the-Trumps-campaign-ties-with-Russia
Facts are stupid things.
-
Tugg doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who will support what he says when called on, so I spent a few minutes researching his statement myself.
Mueller made several million a year in private practice. As Special Prosecutor he will get paid a couple of hundred thousand per year.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-09/mueller-left-millions-in-salary-speeches-to-lead-russia-probe
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/08/robert-mueller-counsel-financial-records-241414
https://www.quora.com/How-much-will-Robert-Mueller-be-paid-as-Special-Counsel-to-investigate-the-Trumps-campaign-ties-with-Russia
Facts are stupid things.
He is another one for you that contains this little gem ...
Mueller, several team members gave up million-dollar jobs to work on special counsel investigation
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/mueller-several-team-members-gave-up-million-dollar-jobs-to-work-on-special-counsel-investigation/2017/08/08/e11169da-7b78-11e7-83c7-5bd5460f0d7e_story.html?utm_term=.f0a6e8de0a15
It is unclear precisely how much each is getting paid to work on the Russia investigation — the special counsel’s office has declined to make its budget proposal public — though it is probably a far cry from their private-sector work.
All these stories say is that he had a high paying job. Fake news that he is making less.
So how much does he make? All of these are dated December 5, 2017
USA Today
Robert Mueller's Russia investigation has cost taxpayers at least $3.2 million so far
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/12/05/robert-muellers-russia-investigation-has-cost-taxpayers-least-3-2-million-so-far/922886001/
CNN
Russia probe cost $7 million over 5 months, DOJ says
https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/05/politics/robert-mueller-investigation-money-spent-fbi/index.html
The Denver Post
Mueller details $6.7M spent in early months of Russia probe
https://www.denverpost.com/2017/12/05/robert-mueller-russia-probe-3-million/
The press cannot even find out exactly how much he has spent. That is a secret too.
--------------
Special counsel operates in secret, can hire whoever he wants, can spend whatever he wants, can pay himself whatever he decides, can take as much time as he wants, and is held accountable to no one and never audited. All financial decisions from his office are kept secret.
-
The Russians and the Chinese know our achilles heel. The Democrats and Republicans will do anything to put party above country. Half the the country thinks Trump is Putin's puppet and the other half believes the rule of law applies to anyone who is not a high ranking Democrat. I have seen the enemy and it is us.
Nope. False equivalency.
-
Michael Flynn pleaded GUILTY and is awaiting sentencing. Mueller keeps putting off his sentencing because the texts and stories are weakening his case (Struck texted Page and said he did not think Flynn was lying ... oops!) Mueller is so bloody incompetent he cannot convict a guy that pleaded guilty!
Holy smokes, is this ignorant.
The reason Flynn hasn't been sentenced is because he's a cooperating witness who's seeking leniency. That leniency is dependent upon his ongoing cooperation in the probe. Once he's sentenced, Mueller no longer has any leverage and Flynn has no reason to continue as a cooperating witness.
Duh times 1,000.
But you're right about one thing ... collusion in an election isn't a crime. But fraud, conspiracy and violating the bipartisan election act are.
-
Finally, today's indictment's essentially are the end of this process. Everyone indicted is currently in Russia. Unless Putin wants to extradite them, and assume the odds of that are between 0% and 0%, there is nothing more to this story. No trial, no defense. So no rolling these guys to cop a plea and give up bigger fish. They are laughing their ass of at us in Moscow.
It's astonishing that one person can be completely, stunningly wrong about almost EVERYTHING he posts. Just amazing. It's an f'ing gift.
-
Holy smokes, is this ignorant.
The reason Flynn hasn't been sentenced is because he's a cooperating witness who's seeking leniency. That leniency is dependent upon his ongoing cooperation in the probe. Once he's sentenced, Mueller no longer has any leverage and Flynn has no reason to continue as a cooperating witness.
Duh times 1,000.
But you're right about one thing ... collusion in an election isn't a crime. But fraud, conspiracy and violating the bipartisan election act are.
There is little use explaining this to Heisy, he's convinced it was Hillary colluding with the Russians.
My question is whether Mueller has, or can get, the goods on Cambridge Analytica. My opinion has long been the were they ones feeding the Russian trollbot farms with the most effective propaganda based on their admittedly awesome profiling ability. I don't know if Gates has the goods on them, but Bannon sure does.
I also think it is a matter of time before Wilbur Ross is indicted. Bank of Cyprus was front and center in the money laundering aspect.
-
Holy smokes, is this ignorant.
The reason Flynn hasn't been sentenced is because he's a cooperating witness who's seeking leniency. That leniency is dependent upon his ongoing cooperation in the probe. Once he's sentenced, Mueller no longer has any leverage and Flynn has no reason to continue as a cooperating witness.
Duh times 1,000.
But you're right about one thing ... collusion in an election isn't a crime. But fraud, conspiracy and violating the bipartisan election act are.
He's done cooperating. The case against him is falling apart with the Struck/Page texts.
The Curious Michael Flynn Guilty Plea
by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY February 13, 2018 3:43 PM
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/456379/michael-flynn-guilty-plea-questions-raised-about-fbi-robert-mueller-investigation
New developments in Flynn's case raise questions about the circumstances under which he pled guilty to lying to the FBI.
...
Could this provide General Flynn with factual grounds of which he was previously unaware to seek to have his plea vacated? Would he have a viable legal basis to undo the plea agreement that he and his lawyer signed on November 30? We do not know at this point. All we can say is that Flynn’s sentencing has just been postponed until May.
-----------
Holy smokes are you ignorant about what is really happening here.,
It is a form of mental illness if you think this investigation is leading to Trump's removal.
-
There is little use explaining this to Heisy, he's convinced it was Hillary colluding with the Russians.
My question is whether Mueller has, or can get, the goods on Cambridge Analytica. My opinion has long been the were they ones feeding the Russian trollbot farms with the most effective propaganda based on their admittedly awesome profiling ability. I don't know if Gates has the goods on them, but Bannon sure does.
I also think it is a matter of time before Wilbur Ross is indicted. Bank of Cyprus was front and center in the money laundering aspect.
In a year I will remind you of this illness.
-
We're getting awfully close to either: a) Heisy feels threatened by rational thought and will call political bias to close this thread, or b) Heisy starts shouting the same extremist nut job platitudes that will get this thread closed.
-
It's astonishing that one person can be completely, stunningly wrong about almost EVERYTHING he posts. Just amazing. It's an f'ing gift.
This post only shows a confirmation bias and is a commentary about you and none of the facts in this case.
-
We're getting awfully close to either: a) Heisy feels threatened by rational thought and will call political bias to close this thread, or b) Heisy starts shouting the same extremist nut job platitudes that will get this thread closed.
Nope ... Going to leave this open.
Bagging one Russian troll farm is it for months. We'll leave this open while Mueller lines his pockets and revisit this on the next "event" in Mueller's attempt to destroy the constitution.
-
Donnie Jr.: "I love it!"
That was just the start of the collusion, and Mueller is digging in.
Enjoy the show.
-
ROFL.
I agree with this analysis.
-
In a year I will remind you of this illness.
You're right, it's probably just a coincidence that Flynn had ties to Russia. And Papadop. And Tillerson. And Sessions. And Erik Prince. And Manafort. And Gates. Completely coincidental.
Oh, and Felix Slater. And Wilbur Ross. And Kushner. And Ivanka. And Don, Jr. And Caputo. And Tevfik Arif. Definitely coincidental.
And the fact Trump denies Russian interference? Coincidental. And that he takes Putin's word over all of our intel agencies? The same. And that he refuses to enforce the sanctions against Russia passed with bipartisan support. Highly coincidental no doubt.
On second thought, it isn't all coincidental: It must be Hillary's fault.
-
Regarding the fees - regardless of what Mueller et al are being paid, they still would have been able to earn a crapload of money on the outside. Claiming that this is just a ploy to line his (Republican) pockets is just ignorant.
-
My question is whether Mueller has, or can get, the goods on Cambridge Analytica. My opinion has long been the were they ones feeding the Russian trollbot farms with the most effective propaganda based on their admittedly awesome profiling ability. I don't know if Gates has the goods on them, but Bannon sure does.
This is the big one. Cambridge Analytica and the Mercer family are the big fish. The question is really if there is a sufficient paper trail.
-
You're right, it's probably just a coincidence that Flynn had ties to Russia. And Papadop. And Tillerson. And Sessions. And Erik Prince. And Manafort. And Gates. Completely coincidental.
Oh, and Felix Slater. And Wilbur Ross. And Kushner. And Ivanka. And Don, Jr. And Caputo. And Tevfik Arif. Definitely coincidental.
And the fact Trump denies Russian interference? Coincidental. And that he takes Putin's word over all of our intel agencies? The same. And that he refuses to enforce the sanctions against Russia passed with bipartisan support. Highly coincidental no doubt.
On second thought, it isn't all coincidental: It must be Hillary's fault.
Do really believe that trolling social media can turn an election? Do you really believe that all the BS and lies the Russians posted (and yes, they did this) was something more than confirmation bias for people that already made up their mind? Do you really believe that this effort more than offsets three 24 hours news cable stations, hundreds of reporters following and investigating the candidates, and over $1 billion spent in commercials in 2016? $54 of Russian Trolls ad on Facebook can neutralize $1 billion in commercials.
Say it out loud, you believe all this mattered and that it took tens, if not hundreds of thousands of Americans that were set to vote for Hillary to pull the lever for Trump? And say out loud that a $1 billion of commercials and 24/7 coverage by CNN/MSNBC/Fox did not matter.
Or, do you believe something that even Obama insists did not happen ... the voting machines were hacked and the vote tallies changed?
So, what form of illness to do subscribe too?
-
Nope ... Going to leave this open.
Bagging one Russian troll farm is it for months. We'll leave this open while Mueller lines his pockets and revisit this on the next "event" in Mueller's attempt to destroy the constitution.
https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/)
If i want to find an unfiltered echo of the alt right i'd just subscribe to the above link. In your own words - no links, quotes or soundbites - exactly how is Mueller attempting to destroy the constitution? If you can make a factual position the rest of us would actually listen. If you can't make a factual position in you own words, well....
-
This is the big one. Cambridge Analytica and the Mercer family are the big fish. The question is really if there is a sufficient paper trail.
We know from Kushner's own admission that he was feeding C.A. the voter information. If Robert Mercer is as brilliant as they say you would think he'd be smart enough not to leave an electronic trail leading from CA to Russia, but who knows what the intelligence agencies are able to track. But if Mueller could get Bannon to rollover...
-
Do really believe that trolling social media can turn an election? Do you really believe that all the BS and lies the Russians posted (and yes, they did this) was something more than confirmation bias for people that already made up their mind? Do you really believe that this effort more than offsets three 24 hours news cable stations, hundreds of reporters following and investigating the candidates, and over $1 billion spent in commercials in 2016? $54 of Russian Trolls ad on Facebook can neutralize $1 billion in commercials.
Huh, interesting legal theory: if a crime is unsuccessful, it isn't really a crime!
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm going to say you are wrong. As usual.
-
https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/)
If i want to find an unfiltered echo of the alt right i'd just subscribe to the above link. In your own words - no links, quotes or soundbites - exactly how is Mueller attempting to destroy the constitution? If you can make a factual position the rest of us would actually listen. If you can't make a factual position in you own words, well....
I was quoting Tower and I assume he was saying a special prosecutor and a court cannot overturn a certified election. That can only be done with an impeactment.
Mueller can write a report and go on TV and talk about it. That's it. Mueller and a grand jury cannot remove the president. But many of you think he will try ... hence a constitutional crisis.
Not a surprise. Still collecting the little fish. Big fish and ultimately a constitutional crisis still to come.
-
Huh, interesting legal theory: if a crime is unsuccessful, it isn't really a crime!
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm going to say you are wrong. As usual.
You're still talking about yourself and not this case.
It is not a crime to lie on the internet. If it was, we would all be in prison for using this site.
That is why they were indicted for bank fraud and identity crisis. The crime you think they committed does not exist.
And since they are foreign, they cannot argue it is a violation of their first amendment right to freedom of speech (which also means you have the freedom to lie on Facebook).
-
I was quoting Tower and I assume he was saying a special prosecutor and a court cannot overturn a certified election. That can only be done with an impeactment.
Mueller can write a report and go on TV and talk about it. That's it. Mueller and a grand jury cannot remove the president. But many of you think he will try ... hence a constitutional crisis.
No. Tower said that the investigation would lead to a Constitutional crisis. You said Mueller is attempting to destroy the Constitution. Two very different things. And when called on it you tried to weasel out.
-
No. Tower said that the investigation would lead to a Constitutional crisis. You said Mueller is attempting to destroy the Constitution. Two very different things. And when called on it you tried to weasel out.
Thank You! I get tired of the "did i read the thread wrong?", "no, he's just modifying his position again....."
-
No. Tower said that the investigation would lead to a Constitutional crisis. You said Mueller is attempting to destroy the Constitution. Two very different things. And when called on it you tried to weasel out.
Three years in Leavenworth for you!
-
You're still talking about yourself and not this case.
It is not a crime to lie on the internet. If it was, we would all be in prison for using this site.
That is why they were indicted for bank fraud and identity crisis. The crime you think they committed does not exist.
And since they are foreign, they cannot argue it is a violation of their first amendment right to freedom of speech (which also means you have the freedom to lie on Facebook).
You are absolutely and completely right Heisy: Mueller isn't going to charge anyone with the crime of "Lying on the Internet". Congratulations on your stunning legal insight.
-
Thank You! I get tired of the "did i read the thread wrong?", "no, he's just modifying his position again....."
I'm right
-
You are absolutely and completely right Heisy: Mueller isn't going to charge anyone with the crime of "Lying on the Internet". Congratulations on your stunning legal insight.
Then why do you claim he did?
Huh, interesting legal theory: if a crime is unsuccessful, it isn't really a crime!
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm going to say you are wrong. As usual.
Still waiting for you to explain how Facebook posts full of lies can turn an election?
-
I'm alt-right
FIFY
AND.....you need a vacation.
-
FIFY
AND.....you need a vacation.
I'm that much of a threat?