Senate issues a statement affirming Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help Trump. Preempting AG Barr.

[HomerJS]

The Senate released a statement ahead of Bill Barr traveling around the world to dig up dirt trying to muddy the waters on Russian interference. Trump wants to absolve Russia of their attack on the United States which would lead to the lifting of sanctions.

At least this time the truth is beating Barr to his lies. Recall Barr spinning the Mueller Report before it was released.

Everyone remember when Trump tries to blame Ukraine for election interference to help Hillary, Trump is LYING. In other words it's Tuesday.

A GOP-led Senate intel committee report states the obvious: Russia favored Trump in 2016

Trump should really take a look at this Senate report. But he won’t.

www.vox.com

 

[glenn1]

The Senate released a statement ahead of Bill Barr traveling around the world to dig up dirt trying to muddy the waters on Russian interference. Trump wants to absolve Russia of their attack on the United States which would lead to the lifting of sanctions.

At least this time the truth is beating Barr to his lies. Recall Barr spinning the Mueller Report before it was released.

Everyone remember when Trump tries to blame Ukraine for election interference to help Hillary, Trump is LYING. In other words it's Tuesday.

A GOP-led Senate intel committee report states the obvious: Russia favored Trump in 2016

Trump should really take a look at this Senate report. But he won’t.

www.vox.com

Ukraine didn't need to interfere to beat Hillary. Being Hillary is what caused Hillary to lose.

 

[Commodus]

The sad thing is that it's increasingly clear Trump is even more simplistic than he appeared before the presidency. He worships vicious dictators like Vladimir Putin or Kim Jong-un not because of kompromat or some elaborate conspiracy, but because his one-track "gimme gimme" brain will pursue anything that pads his wealth and ego.

He's weak on Russia because he thinks that will help a real estate deal there; he's weak on North Korea because he hopes that'll get him a Nobel Peace Prize; he asks foreign governments to dig up dirt on rivals because his impulse to win overrides basic self-preservation, let alone ethics. The US elected a psychotic, and it's paying the price for that.

 

[Indus]

Ukraine didn't need to interfere to beat Hillary. Being Hillary is what caused Hillary to lose.

There's a difference inbetween being a shitty candidate and bullying the shitty the candidate to look shittier!

The Mueller Report and other things point that this is the latter. And considering the results where Trump won by only 0.1% of the vote in 3 states.. I'd wager it did make a difference.

 

[Vic]

Ukraine didn't need to interfere to beat Hillary. Being Hillary is what caused Hillary to lose.

Why is need relevant?

 

[glenn1]

Why is need relevant?

Ask the OP why he thought it was relevant to have brought it up in the first place, I merely responded to him.

My point was that blaming 3rd party state actors for her loss is like blaming the fork for being overweight. She lost because of who she was, any "Russian interference" just highlighted that to voters and reminded them why they didn't want her as POTUS.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Ask the OP why he thought it was relevant to have brought it up in the first place, I merely responded to him.

My point was that blaming 3rd party state actors for her loss is like blaming the fork for being overweight. She lost because of who she was, any "Russian interference" just highlighted that to voters and reminded them why they didn't want her as POTUS.

Hey I’m not sure where you are on this but do you agree with what I admittedly breezed thru about the report.
There is a part where it says the Russian Troll factory actively supported Donald Trump and actively promoted disinformation regarding everyone else. This includes more than Hillary, it invokes Jeb!, Little Marco, Teddy Cruz and many others.
Do you agree with that summary?

 

[HomerJS]

Ask the OP why he thought it was relevant to have brought it up in the first place, I merely responded to him.

My point was that blaming 3rd party state actors for her loss is like blaming the fork for being overweight. She lost because of who she was, any "Russian interference" just highlighted that to voters and reminded them why they didn't want her as POTUS.

As I stated Barr will attempt to spin up the narrative is wasn't Russia but it was Ukraine. If that sticks the predicate for sanctions is gone so Trump will try to lift them. If Trump is successful it also delegitimizes the entire Mueller Report

The question to ask why are so many so stupid to continually fall for Trump's bullshit?

 

[interchange]

Ask the OP why he thought it was relevant to have brought it up in the first place, I merely responded to him.

My point was that blaming 3rd party state actors for her loss is like blaming the fork for being overweight. She lost because of who she was, any "Russian interference" just highlighted that to voters and reminded them why they didn't want her as POTUS.

It wasn't the OP who brought it up. It's Trump. Examining the claim further is diversion. The issue at hand is Trump is actively abusing his governmental office to corruptly write false narratives because he believes it's in his interest for an upcoming election. Whether it actually mattered for the last election or matters for the upcoming one is irrelevant. Address Trump for his actions.

 

[UNCjigga]

Ask the OP why he thought it was relevant to have brought it up in the first place, I merely responded to him.

My point was that blaming 3rd party state actors for her loss is like blaming the fork for being overweight. She lost because of who she was, any "Russian interference" just highlighted that to voters and reminded them why they didn't want her as POTUS.

I agree with your point, but it’s a moot point. I think Hillary lost for a number of reasons, and if we were to blame external forces we’d be better off blaming Comey and the NYC FBI field office.

But the fact remains that Russia meddled in our election—whether or not they directly or indirectly swayed the outcome. I think the reason that matters (and the reason the current Ukraine scandal matters) is because there is evidence the Trump campaign and people working for Trump actively solicited and/or encouraged that meddling, which is an impeachable offense even if not a crime defined by statute.

Trump is trying to rewrite history by pushing this Ukraine 2016 meddling narrative, and we should all be wary as to why. Is this cover to drop Russian sanctions, cover to pardon Manafort or others, or something else?

 

[HomerJS]

I agree with your point, but it’s a moot point. I think Hillary lost for a number of reasons, and if we were to blame external forces we’d be better off blaming Comey and the NYC FBI field office.

But the fact remains that Russia meddled in our election—whether or not they directly or indirectly swayed the outcome. I think the reason that matters (and the reason the current Ukraine scandal matters) is because there is evidence the Trump campaign and people working for Trump actively solicited and/or encouraged that meddling, which is an impeachable offense even if not a crime defined by statute.

Trump is trying to rewrite history by pushing this Ukraine 2016 meddling narrative, and we should all be wary as to why. Is this cover to drop Russian sanctions, cover to pardon Manafort or others, or something else?

ding...ding...ding

 

[imported_tajmahal]

A Senate committee, NOT "the Senate" What do we call those?

something by omission?

 

[glenn1]

Hey I’m not sure where you are on this but do you agree with what I admittedly breezed thru about the report.
There is a part where it says the Russian Troll factory actively supported Donald Trump and actively promoted disinformation regarding everyone else. This includes more than Hillary, it invokes Jeb!, Little Marco, Teddy Cruz and many others.
Do you agree with that summary?

I have no reason to doubt their conclusion and it seems to fit with their current government and their proclivities. I have little doubt that other state actors likewise did similar things although likely with far less resources. After all the U.S. government has been interfering in other countries' elections for decades if not longer, and the U.S. complaining about it being done to them is laughably hypocritical.

That being said I'm unsure what can realistically be done to prevent it. We can't even stop blatant disinformation about factual and disprovable things like "vaccines cause autism" so I don't see how we'll stop folks from influencing people's opinions about political figures which is inherently subjective.

I suppose one thing which could be done is expect the political parties to hold their candidates to higher standards so they aren't as susceptible to these efforts. Such as not picking the most unpopular candidate ever in history, or the 2nd most unpopular ever to run against the first. Not picking folks saying things like "grab 'em by the p@ssy" or trying to evade transparency laws by doing government business on private email servers. Etc etc etc ad infinitum.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I have no reason to doubt their conclusion and it seems to fit with their current government and their proclivities. I have little doubt that other state actors likewise did similar things although likely with far less resources. After all the U.S. government has been interfering in other countries' elections for decades if not longer, and the U.S. complaining about it being done to them is laughably hypocritical.

That being said I'm unsure what can realistically be done to prevent it. We can't even stop blatant disinformation about factual and disprovable things like "vaccines cause autism" so I don't see how we'll stop folks from influencing people's opinions about political figures which is inherently subjective.

I suppose one thing which could be done is expect the political parties to hold their candidates to higher standards so they aren't as susceptible to these efforts. Such as not picking the most unpopular candidate ever in history, or the 2nd most unpopular ever to run against the first. Not picking folks saying things like "grab 'em by the p@ssy" or trying to evade transparency laws by doing government business on private email servers. Etc etc etc ad infinitum.

I'm glad we mostly agree upon this topic, seems like not too long ago it was a bridge too far.
Honestly I'd be pretty happy with Google, Facebook & Twitter cleaning up their mess since they are the primary sources of the problem. They have started to clean things up but they need to be more vigilant. I'm not against some kind of Government oversight if they continue to screw it up but that is a different topic for another day.

 

[Homerboy]

Ukraine didn't need to interfere to beat Hillary. Being Hillary is what caused Hillary to lose.

Please back this statement with proof/evidence.
Please show that the relative hand-full of votes needed to change the outcome of 2016 were not swayed or influenced by Russian interference.

 

[glenn1]

Please back this statement with proof/evidence.
Please show that the relative hand-full of votes needed to change the outcome of 2016 were not swayed or influenced by Russian interference.

The burden of proof is on the person making the assertion, so you should be showing that it changed the outcome not me.

My position is that idea that we'll somehow stop any non U.S. person from influencing the opinion of a U.S. voter is not only impossible but a stupid thing to even try. Like I said before we can't even stop people from believing vaccines cause autism, and you want to play Don Quixote and try to prevent Russia or whoever from creating memes? People naturally search out material that serves their confirmation bias and this content will be produced no matter what.

 

[fskimospy]

The burden of proof is on the person making the assertion, so you should be showing that it changed the outcome not me.

My position is that idea that we'll somehow stop any non U.S. person from influencing the opinion of a U.S. voter is not only impossible but a stupid thing to even try. Like I said before we can't even stop people from believing vaccines cause autism, and you want to play Don Quixote and try to prevent Russia or whoever from creating memes? People naturally search out material that serves their confirmation bias and this content will be produced no matter what.

If you think Russia’s intervention could change 0.5% of voters or less then it’s a perfectly plausible argument.

It would be an extraordinary claim to say with confidence that effects that small are not reasonable to assume.

 

[glenn1]

If you think Russia’s intervention could change 0.5% of voters or less then it’s a perfectly plausible argument.

It would be an extraordinary claim to say with confidence that effects that small are not reasonable to assume.

So your response to him using the logical fallacy of Shifting the Burden of Proof is to handwave away any need for evidence and just assume it to be true? That's the logical fallacy of Alleged Certainty.

 

[Commodus]

A Senate committee, NOT "the Senate" What do we call those?

something by omission?

It's still a Republican-led committee, and it's concurring with evidence from multiple intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

You can accept that Russia tried to meddle in the US election and favor Trump, or you can be wrong.

 

[HomerJS]

It's still a Republican-led committee, and it's concurring with evidence from multiple intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

You can accept that Russia tried to meddle in the US election and favor Trump, or you can be wrong.

Taj will always believe Trump. Explains a lot.

 

[fskimospy]

So your response to him using the logical fallacy of Shifting the Burden of Proof is to handwave away any need for evidence and just assume it to be true? That's the logical fallacy of Alleged Certainty.

Nope, I'm saying that because a counterfactual is impossible to know for sure. In those cases we can just look at if his inference is reasonable, which it is.

 

[glenn1]

Nope, I'm saying that because a counterfactual is impossible to know for sure. In those cases we can just look at if his inference is reasonable, which it is.

Whatever excuse you need to make I suppose. It'll improve your future election prospects when you properly assign the blame to your candidate instead of outside forces.

 

[HomerJS]

Nope, I'm saying that because a counterfactual is impossible to know for sure. In those cases we can just look at if his inference is reasonable, which it is.

What the Russians did on Facebook is akin to advertising. If it had zero influence companies would not spend billions in it.

 

[fskimospy]

Whatever excuse you need to make I suppose. It'll improve your future election prospects when you properly assign the blame to your candidate instead of outside forces.

I don't need to make any excuses, I'm just applying common sense. It's certainly possible that had Clinton been a stronger candidate the Russian espionage wouldn't have been enough, but that doesn't magically mean it had no effect.

If it makes you feel better to pretend that coordinated espionage campaigns are entirely ineffective and countries just engage in them as some sort of jobs program that's fine.

 

[glenn1]

I don't need to make any excuses, I'm just applying common sense. It's certainly possible that had Clinton been a stronger candidate the Russian espionage wouldn't have been enough, but that doesn't magically mean it had no effect.

If it makes you feel better to pretend that coordinated espionage campaigns are entirely ineffective and countries just engage in them as some sort of jobs program that's fine.

First, it wasn't espionage, you're misusing terms. It wasn't some state secret the Russians stole that Hillary was a disliked person who was a poor choice to run.

Secondly, even if you more properly said "a coordinated propaganda campaign" or something like that I didn't make that assertion that it was "entirely ineffective." I said "Being Hillary is what caused Hillary to lose." A better candidate wouldn't have allowed the propaganda to have been nearly as effective, basically it just reminded people of why they disliked Hillary Clinton to begin with. It didn't cause them to hold unfavorable views in the first place. Necessity and sufficiency.