Hot takes on the Democratic frontrunners

[Undertoad]

1. Trolled on Facebook
2. Bought divisive ads on Facebook
3. Published fake news on RT, often forwarded on Facebook
4. Cyber-stole and published Hillary Clinton/John Podesta/DNC emails
4a. Cyber-stole Republican emails but didn't publish them
5. Cyber-stole information about registered voters
UT note: this is information you can legally buy, or even get for free. In 1996 I asked for, and received, my county's voter database just by telling them that I was an officer of a political party in the county. (I was, but I didn't have to prove it.)
6. Funneled money into pro-Trump PACs

IIRC NY Times story showed they had an interest in hacking into voting machines in all 50 states; story found that the state they were most likely to be able to affect was Illinois, but did not have any evidence that they actually did affect anything. (And Hillary won Illinois, and was always going to, so why bother?)

The conspiracy theory is in the unproven bits. The top unproven bit is collusion, but people even go on to say Russia is managing Trump's press statements, or Russia might cut off American electricity during a cold snap in the winter, or Russia has a tape of Trump getting peed on which is why he's under their control. People take the puzzling evidence they have and build a narrative around it.

But it's true: Russia interfered in the 2016 election. It is well-proven.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

But it's true: Russia interfered in the 2016 election. It is well-proven.

It's worth noting-- Russia successfully interfered in the 2016 election.

The goals they took steps to accomplish were achieved, and we are now living in that world.

And it continues. When their bots support a candidate (maybe?), someone will say, "Russian Asset!" and they've succeeding in making us argue about it.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Flint

It's worth noting-- Russia successfully interfered in the 2016 election.

The goals they took steps to accomplish were achieved, and we are now living in that world.

Unproven is that they influenced many votes. We examined the Facebook campaign here. It was pretty weak; and most of it didn't even focus on politics, it was more about divisive issues.

More importantly, Russia was one operation trying to influence the election - amongst *hundreds* of operations. The Wikipedia article says they got $30M to the NRA to run pro-Trump messaging. But that's just $30 Million out of $1.4 Billion spent by PACs to try to influence the election.

As such, victory alone is not proof of anything. The DNC are more effective influencers (and they arguably kept Gabbard out of the previous debate)

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Unproven is that they influenced many votes. We examined the Facebook campaign here. It was pretty weak; and most of it didn't even focus on politics, it was more about divisive issues.

More importantly, Russia was one operation trying to influence the election - amongst *hundreds* of operations. The Wikipedia article says they got $30M to the NRA to run pro-Trump messaging. But that's just $30 Million out of $1.4 Billion spent by PACs to try to influence the election.

As such, victory alone is not proof of anything. The DNC are more effective influencers (and they arguably kept Gabbard out of the previous debate)

The big kicker for me is the RNC emails which were definitely hacked, but never leaked. Folks are being blackmailed, the only question is who and for how much (obviously not money.)

I'd lay any amount of money on Lindsey Graham being compromised, for example. Dude was railing against Trump in some of the strongest terms out there, both before AND after he was elected. Then he takes a one-on-one golf game alone with Trump, and since then he's been licking the guy's balls 24/7.

[Griff]

Not what I needed to visualize over lunch

[henry quirk]

"The big kicker for me is the RNC emails which were definitely hacked, but never leaked. Folks are being blackmailed, the only question is who and for how much (obviously not money.)"

1: We know the Repub accounts were hacked how?

2: If hacked, we know the Repub accounts had dirt in 'em how?

3: If there was dirt, we know blackmail is happenin' how?

#

"I'd lay any amount of money on Lindsey Graham being compromised, for example. Dude was railing against Trump in some of the strongest terms out there, both before AND after he was elected. Then he takes a one-on-one golf game alone with Trump, and since then he's been licking the guy's balls 24/7."

Seems to me Graham got his balls after Mccain kicked. I think Johnny had dirt on Lindsey, dirt he took to his grave freein' Graham up to go where he preferred instead of where directed.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Unproven is that they influenced many votes. We examined the Facebook campaign here. It was pretty weak; and most of it didn't even focus on politics, it was more about divisive issues.

I have a very different view about this. Divisive issues are the biggest problem in our society-- divisiveness is ruining our politics, our civil society, and our lives. I know you don't disagree with this. Our political system is gridlocked by two corrupt entities, and people won't vote them out-- because of divisive, "scare issues." This is the primary method of controlling politics in America-- if you manipulate the divisiveness, you manipulate the whole machine.

I would argue that, in general, the ONLY factor that influences votes is divisive issues.

And, specifically, a way that votes are influenced? By getting people (for example, on the Left) to argue among themselves, and not be able to form a coalition to challenge authoritarianism. In 2016, this was by fueling a contentious Primary--it was contentious on it's own, but the Bots made sure we never stopped fighting about it. In 2019, it's people arguing about Gabbard on Facebook--this is happening today, right now. If "the Left" is having arguments started by Russian bots (on Facebook RIGHT NOW), they end up, for example, voting for Jill Stein (2016) which is what HRC--I assume-- was talking about, albeit in the stupidest way possible. Apparently she never heard "don't feed the trolls"

[henry quirk]

1. Trolled on Facebook

So: how many in-forum got took?

#

2. Bought divisive ads on Facebook

So: how many in-forum got took?

#

3. Published fake news on RT, often forwarded on Facebook

What's RT? And: how many in-forum got took?

#

4. Cyber-stole and published Hillary Clinton/John Podesta/DNC emails

Unlike all the FB stuff (I don't do FB) I read a bunch of the DNC stuff on wikileaks. Not sure how accurate info counts as interference, but: okay.

So: how many in-forum got took?

#

4a. Cyber-stole Republican emails but didn't publish them

How do we know they had Repub stuff? And: mebbe the Repub stuff had nuthin' incriminatin' in them?

#

5. Cyber-stole information about registered voters

And used it how?

#

6. Funneled money into pro-Trump PACs

We know this how?

#

"The conspiracy theory is in the unproven bits."

As always.

#

"The top unproven bit is collusion,"

Not only unproven but disproven, or are we to doubt Mueller?

#

"But it's true: Russia interfered in the 2016 election. It is well-proven."

Seems to me: what's proven is the Ruskies tried to interfere, not that they were successful.

[henry quirk]

No, it isn't a given cuz they mebbe got what they wanted that they were successful.

Again: how many in-forum got took?

I'm bettin' not a one.

So: what makes you folks immune to monkeyshine?

I'm thinkin' most folks, most of the time, are no more gullible than any of you.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Russia has a tape of Trump getting peed on

This is the dramatized version the public has settled on, but IIRC the actual allegation from the dossier was that he told the prostitutes to pee on the bed as a crude joke because the Obamas had slept on it. It wasn't really sexual, just gross. They have plenty of money-stuff with which to control Trump, IMHO, and too much of his sexual stuff is already public for it to be viable blackmail material.

[Undertoad]

Meanwhile, another day has passed and there is still no evidence given of Tulsi Gabbard being a Russian asset.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Meanwhile, another day has passed and there is still no evidence given of Tulsi Gabbard being a Russian asset.

I read an interesting thing a couple days ago (lost the link unfortunately) about how we need to stop using the word "asset" because it conveys a level of conspiracy that is too nefarious; but we also should acknowledge that Russia uses people for their own gain with or without those people's express agreement. The Russia/Tulsi connection is that Russian media is gratuitously fawning over her (from NBC News all the way back in February):

Since Gabbard announced her intention to run on Jan. 11, there have been at least 20 Gabbard stories on three major Moscow-based English-language websites affiliated with or supportive of the Russian government... All three sites celebrated Gabbard's announcement, defended her positions on Russia and her 2017 meeting with Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad, and attacked those who have suggested she is a pawn for Moscow... Gabbard was mentioned on the three sites about twice as often as two of the best known Democratic possibilities for 2020, Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, each with 10 stories... Gabbard's most controversial position and the one where she's most in line with Russian interests is on Syria. She's accused the U.S. of pushing a policy of "regime change" wars and in January 2017, she met with Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad in Syria on what she called a "fact-finding mission"... In articles on the Russian sites, Gabbard is described as a "rebel," who is "straight-talking" and a "heroic" candidate who will "shake up" the establishment... Besides her views on Syria, she responded to reports of Russian interference in the 2016 election by saying the U.S. had interfered in foreign elections too.

None of which says she's an asset, just the candidate whose foreign policy views (for whatever reason) are most aligned with Russia's. That being said, Gabbard doesn't help herself with crap like this:

Erika Tsuji, a spokeswoman for Gabbard, said it as "ridiculous" to suggest the Russians supported her candidacy.

I think the more realistic analysis is that Russia largely wants to sow seeds of division and chaos in American politics, and this (like supporting Jill Stein in 2016) is just one more way to do that.

Within a few days of Gabbard announcing her presidential bid, DisInfo 2018, part of the cybersecurity firm New Knowledge, found that three of the top 15 URLs shared by the 800 social media accounts affiliated with known and suspected Russian propaganda operations directed at U.S. citizens were about Gabbard.

Analysts at New Knowledge, the company the Senate Intelligence Committee used to track Russian activities in the 2016 election, told NBC News they've spotted "chatter" related to Gabbard in anonymous online message boards, including those known for fomenting right-wing troll campaigns. The chatter discussed Gabbard's usefulness.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

I think the more realistic analysis is that Russia largely wants to sow seeds of division and chaos in American politics, and this (like supporting Jill Stein in 2016) is just one more way to do that.

This seems likely. But Hillary can just make that allegation in full, instead of being coy about it and offering nothing. Its accuracy would well be damning, in all the right directions. Instead she has made it into a game. "Figure out who I'm talking about and why it might be relevant."

By not doing that, Hillary is elevating the seeds of division and chaos. Why does their primary target of 2016 play right into their hands?

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

This seems likely. But Hillary can just make that allegation in full, instead of being coy about it and offering nothing. Its accuracy would well be damning, in all the right directions. Instead she has made it into a game. "Figure out who I'm talking about and why it might be relevant."

By not doing that, Hillary is elevating the seeds of division and chaos. Why does their primary target of 2016 play right into their hands?

Didn't we ask Hillary to go away? She is playing to her own base for reasons only clear to herself. I guess she's trying to dump the guilt..? Tulsi has a legitimate POV which ideally would be discussed. She stands opposite the Neo-cons, making her only as extreme as the folks this country was comfortable supporting after 9/11. I think she'd go too far but I like that someone is at least talking about our place in the world.

[henry quirk]

Originally Posted by Griff

Didn't we ask Hillary to go away?

Like she gives a flip. She wants her job. She's been denied twice. Heads need to roll. And they will when she wins in 20.