Posts: 7,011
Threads: 441
Joined: Sep 2014
(01-19-2017, 09:47 AM)SFLiberal Wrote: (01-15-2017, 07:36 PM)orygunluvr Wrote:
Apparently it is OK to release classified military intelligence to Wikileaks, but it is not OK to release unclassified DNC emails to them. I know this should be under Liberal Logic.....
So often you start with a false premise, then complicate it by adding even more things that are beside the point.
Of course it's not okay that classifed files were stolen and released. And there was no way of preventing unclassifed emails to be released. What can be debated is why the FBI chose to make public the emails RELEASED TO THEM just prior to the national election.
Even now, the FBI director is answering questions about it.
But, as you so well know, it makes little difference. It's done. Mr. Trump will assume the office of president of these united states no matter what is learned about the actions of the FBI.
The ISSUE is what we can do in the future to make sure another sovereign nation can't meddle in the process we use to elect our officials.
So, again you present a "straw man" argument that contributes nothing to the discourse of this place.
We have few members, and would hope that those who post here would give some consideration to what is printed and attempt to add to the dialog rather than simple "making noise"
You can do better than this. Please do.
Posts: 14,339
Threads: 709
Joined: Jan 2011
Anyone else read this dossier? Seems most of it can be fairly easily verified or debunked.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/...tions.html
Posts: 15,666
Threads: 422
Joined: Feb 2009
Di Fi may have cooked Donald's goose.
Now she's a real patriot.
Posts: 14,339
Threads: 709
Joined: Jan 2011
(01-11-2018, 08:58 AM)bbqboy Wrote: Di Fi may have cooked Donald's goose.
Now she's a real patriot.
I was going to post this later today after I read it, but WTH.
https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/...dacted.pdf
Posts: 1,087
Threads: 25
Joined: Mar 2014
I have a question, and I think it is legitimately a question we all should have asked since last Friday's indictments against 13 Russians and Russian companies for interfering with the 2016 Presidential election. They are specific charges mainly focused on buying Facebook ads to perpetuate lies and propaganda. They have done a thorough job of convincing all of us that these ads were partially responsible for Trumps election.
So the question is this: Specific charges, convincing us public, yet.. Have any of you seen ANY specific ad that they are talking about? Shouldn't they have shown at least one example of a genuine Russian propaganda ad that appeared and was shared on Facebook? Wouldn't it be prudent to show us this propaganda first hand so we would know what to recognize in the future?
If any of you can show me an example, provided by the Government in relation to the charges, I will apologize for not having seen it yet.
Posts: 14,339
Threads: 709
Joined: Jan 2011
02-19-2018, 07:01 PM
(This post was last modified: 02-19-2018, 07:02 PM by Valuesize. Edited 1 time in total.)
(02-19-2018, 06:33 PM)Someones Dad Wrote: I have a question, and I think it is legitimately a question we all should have asked since last Friday's indictments against 13 Russians and Russian companies for interfering with the 2016 Presidential election. They are specific charges mainly focused on buying Facebook ads to perpetuate lies and propaganda. The ads were a small part. The largest part was playing the roles of Americans highly interested in politics and there are many described throughout the document. They have done a thorough job of convincing all of us that these ads were partially responsible for Trumps election. I need to get back to you later on this. I'm sure I read somewhere in the doc that states the opposite.
So the question is this: Specific charges, convincing us public, yet.. Have any of you seen ANY specific ad that they are talking about? Shouldn't they have shown at least one example of a genuine Russian propaganda ad that appeared and was shared on Facebook? Wouldn't it be prudent to show us this propaganda first hand so we would know what to recognize in the future?
If any of you can show me an example, provided by the Government in relation to the charges, I will apologize for not having seen it yet.
I'm short on time right now, but have you read the document? If not you should because you are misstating a couple of things. (Highlighted)
Please Read: https://www.justice.gov/file/1035477/download
Posts: 1,087
Threads: 25
Joined: Mar 2014
(02-19-2018, 07:01 PM)Valuesize Wrote: (02-19-2018, 06:33 PM)Someones Dad Wrote: I have a question, and I think it is legitimately a question we all should have asked since last Friday's indictments against 13 Russians and Russian companies for interfering with the 2016 Presidential election. They are specific charges mainly focused on buying Facebook ads to perpetuate lies and propaganda. The ads were a small part. The largest part was playing the roles of Americans highly interested in politics and there are many described throughout the document. They have done a thorough job of convincing all of us that these ads were partially responsible for Trumps election. I need to get back to you later on this. I'm sure I read somewhere in the doc that states the opposite.
So the question is this: Specific charges, convincing us public, yet.. Have any of you seen ANY specific ad that they are talking about? Shouldn't they have shown at least one example of a genuine Russian propaganda ad that appeared and was shared on Facebook? Wouldn't it be prudent to show us this propaganda first hand so we would know what to recognize in the future?
If any of you can show me an example, provided by the Government in relation to the charges, I will apologize for not having seen it yet.
I'm short on time right now, but have you read the document? If not you should because you are misstating a couple of things. (Highlighted)
Please Read: https://www.justice.gov/file/1035477/download
So you haven't seen one either?
Posts: 4,926
Threads: 34
Joined: Nov 2013
(02-19-2018, 07:07 PM)Someones Dad Wrote: (02-19-2018, 07:01 PM)Valuesize Wrote: (02-19-2018, 06:33 PM)Someones Dad Wrote: I have a question, and I think it is legitimately a question we all should have asked since last Friday's indictments against 13 Russians and Russian companies for interfering with the 2016 Presidential election. They are specific charges mainly focused on buying Facebook ads to perpetuate lies and propaganda. The ads were a small part. The largest part was playing the roles of Americans highly interested in politics and there are many described throughout the document. They have done a thorough job of convincing all of us that these ads were partially responsible for Trumps election. I need to get back to you later on this. I'm sure I read somewhere in the doc that states the opposite.
So the question is this: Specific charges, convincing us public, yet.. Have any of you seen ANY specific ad that they are talking about? Shouldn't they have shown at least one example of a genuine Russian propaganda ad that appeared and was shared on Facebook? Wouldn't it be prudent to show us this propaganda first hand so we would know what to recognize in the future?
If any of you can show me an example, provided by the Government in relation to the charges, I will apologize for not having seen it yet.
I'm short on time right now, but have you read the document? If not you should because you are misstating a couple of things. (Highlighted)
Please Read: https://www.justice.gov/file/1035477/download
So you haven't seen one either?
Seriously? So, have you bothered to read the document?
Posts: 14,339
Threads: 709
Joined: Jan 2011
02-19-2018, 08:36 PM
(This post was last modified: 02-19-2018, 09:57 PM by Valuesize. Edited 4 times in total.)
(02-19-2018, 07:07 PM)Someones Dad Wrote: (02-19-2018, 07:01 PM)Valuesize Wrote: (02-19-2018, 06:33 PM)Someones Dad Wrote: I have a question, and I think it is legitimately a question we all should have asked since last Friday's indictments against 13 Russians and Russian companies for interfering with the 2016 Presidential election. They are specific charges mainly focused on buying Facebook ads to perpetuate lies and propaganda. The ads were a small part. The largest part was playing the roles of Americans highly interested in politics and there are many described throughout the document. They have done a thorough job of convincing all of us that these ads were partially responsible for Trumps election. I need to get back to you later on this. I'm sure I read somewhere in the doc that states the opposite.
So the question is this: Specific charges, convincing us public, yet.. Have any of you seen ANY specific ad that they are talking about? Shouldn't they have shown at least one example of a genuine Russian propaganda ad that appeared and was shared on Facebook? Wouldn't it be prudent to show us this propaganda first hand so we would know what to recognize in the future?
If any of you can show me an example, provided by the Government in relation to the charges, I will apologize for not having seen it yet.
I'm short on time right now, but have you read the document? If not you should because you are misstating a couple of things. (Highlighted)
Please Read: https://www.justice.gov/file/1035477/download
So you haven't seen one either?
No I rarely go to Facebook . Your manner tells me you think these ads are being secretly withheld?
I'm outside grilling a beautiful steak and I found this on my first try.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/us/po...ebook.html
I'll be back after dinner :-) please read the 37 page document it will answer almost all of your questions. Oh and stop watching Fox News
Edit: Fox News is OK for comparing other real news channels, but there is not more than a few hours offered in a 24 hour cycle. PLEASE do not think ANY of the other "shows" are news. (Hannity, Waters, Judge Whoever and Fox and Friends are disinformation whores) TRUTH!
Posts: 15,666
Threads: 422
Joined: Feb 2009
What's a little subterfuge and espionage among enemy nations if your guy benefitted.
We haven't even gotten around to penetration of state voting rolls.
Posts: 14,339
Threads: 709
Joined: Jan 2011
(02-19-2018, 06:33 PM)Someones Dad Wrote: I have a question, and I think it is legitimately a question we all should have asked since last Friday's indictments against 13 Russians and Russian companies for interfering with the 2016 Presidential election. They are specific charges mainly focused on buying Facebook ads to perpetuate lies and propaganda. They have done a thorough job of convincing all of us that these ads were partially responsible for Trumps election.
So the question is this: Specific charges, convincing us public, yet.. Have any of you seen ANY specific ad that they are talking about? Shouldn't they have shown at least one example of a genuine Russian propaganda ad that appeared and was shared on Facebook? Wouldn't it be prudent to show us this propaganda first hand so we would know what to recognize in the future? I get the distinct impression you think information is being withheld from you by our government, MSM or both. I don't know where you get your main diet of news, but I seriously suggest you broaden your sources. I use lefty, righty, and multiple international news sources to verify ALL important subjects and all the little stuff I get the left and rights take and find the middle TRUTH.
If any of you can show me an example, provided by the Government in relation to the charges, I will apologize for not having seen it yet.
So do you use Facebook often? Do any of these look familiar?
Posts: 14,339
Threads: 709
Joined: Jan 2011
02-19-2018, 09:59 PM
(This post was last modified: 02-19-2018, 10:01 PM by Valuesize. Edited 1 time in total.)
I'll bet you saw this one.
Posts: 14,339
Threads: 709
Joined: Jan 2011
Food for thought. Most reputable news sources worldwide fact check and recheck multiple times before running stories from other outlets, but they run them all the time because they check out. You know these are the ones the current resident of the White House sǝᴉdnɔɔo says are "Fake News." You will almost never see them run stories originating from Fox.
Posts: 4,926
Threads: 34
Joined: Nov 2013
(02-19-2018, 10:15 PM)Valuesize Wrote: Food for thought. Most reputable news sources worldwide fact check and recheck multiple times before running stories from other outlets, but they run them all the time because they check out. You know these are the ones the current resident of the White House sǝᴉdnɔɔo says are "Fake News." You will almost never see them run stories originating from Fox.
How did you do that?
Posts: 14,339
Threads: 709
Joined: Jan 2011
02-19-2018, 11:05 PM
(This post was last modified: 02-19-2018, 11:15 PM by Valuesize. Edited 1 time in total.)
(02-19-2018, 10:30 PM)Cuzz Wrote: (02-19-2018, 10:15 PM)Valuesize Wrote: Food for thought. Most reputable news sources worldwide fact check and recheck multiple times before running stories from other outlets, but they run them all the time because they check out. You know these are the ones the current resident of the White House sǝᴉdnɔɔo says are "Fake News." You will almost never see them run stories originating from Fox.
How did you do that?
Just turn you keyboard upside down when typing.
Would you have prefered this way? Which way is easier to read?
Oɔɔndᴉǝp
Posts: 18,298
Threads: 867
Joined: Mar 2011
(02-19-2018, 11:05 PM)Valuesize Wrote: (02-19-2018, 10:30 PM)Cuzz Wrote: (02-19-2018, 10:15 PM)Valuesize Wrote: Food for thought. Most reputable news sources worldwide fact check and recheck multiple times before running stories from other outlets, but they run them all the time because they check out. You know these are the ones the current resident of the White House sǝᴉdnɔɔo says are "Fake News." You will almost never see them run stories originating from Fox.
How did you do that?
Would you have prefered this way? Which way is easier to read?
Oɔɔndᴉǝp
ǝɹǝɥʇ ǝɹɐ ןɐɹǝʌǝs ʇxǝʇ sɹǝddıןɟ
http://www.fliptext.info/
Posts: 1,087
Threads: 25
Joined: Mar 2014
(02-19-2018, 09:59 PM)Valuesize Wrote: I'll bet you saw this one.
No I did not.
Posts: 14,339
Threads: 709
Joined: Jan 2011
02-20-2018, 10:59 AM
(This post was last modified: 02-20-2018, 11:00 AM by Valuesize. Edited 1 time in total.)
(02-20-2018, 09:08 AM)Someones Dad Wrote: No I did not.
Did you see any of the others? Do use FB much? That's where you would see FB ads. If your first thought was you didn't see them so the government must be hiding or better yet making them up, you need to stay away from those fake news sources. At least try to get a better rounded view for God's sake.
Posts: 22,606
Threads: 795
Joined: Jan 2011
And... how about this:
https://www.cnet.com/news/russian-twitte...e=facebook
Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk
Posts: 14,339
Threads: 709
Joined: Jan 2011
(02-19-2018, 06:33 PM)Someones Dad Wrote: I have a question, and I think it is legitimately a question we all should have asked since last Friday's indictments against 13 Russians and Russian companies for interfering with the 2016 Presidential election. They are specific charges mainly focused on buying Facebook ads to perpetuate lies and propaganda. They have done a thorough job of convincing all of us that these ads were partially responsible for Trumps election.
So the question is this: Specific charges, convincing us public, yet.. Have any of you seen ANY specific ad that they are talking about? Shouldn't they have shown at least one example of a genuine Russian propaganda ad that appeared and was shared on Facebook? Wouldn't it be prudent to show us this propaganda first hand so we would know what to recognize in the future?
If any of you can show me an example, provided by the Government in relation to the charges, I will apologize for not having seen it yet.
I've been searching the doc and still haven't found any statement claiming to prove the election was altered. There's just know way to know if minds were changed from their actions.
This is from page 12. I can find LOTS of similar interfere adjectives all throughout, but no claim responsible for his election. (partial or otherwise)
Object of the Conspiracy
28. The conspiracy had as its object impairing, obstructing, and defeating the lawful governmental functions of the United States by dishonest means in order to enable the Defendants to interfere with U.S. political and electoral processes, including the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
|