Poll of the Day > Russian meddling in the US election last year was a problem how?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Literally all that happened was a bunch of Russians posted Pepe memes on the internet and paid for Trump ads using fake accounts.

The US meddles in much more blatant, direct methods in other elections and nobody ever makes a scandal from it. For instance, every US talkshow that brought up the Canadian election in 2015 was blatantly against Harper. The same happened in France this year with Marine Le Pen. This is much more blatant and effective as a meddling strategy than what happened in the US in 2016.

I'm not sympathizing with Trump, but I don't get why we are considering this an issue. Russians supported Trump and used social media to promote him. Big fucking deal.
---

Russia is currently the scapegoat country because they refuse to be part of a centralized world government.

It doesn't matter if it happened or not, it doesn't matter if the U.S. and other countries are being hypocrites, it's a witch hunt against Trump because every other politician and all the corporations want Trump impeached because he's impeding their "business as usual (corruption)".
---

faramir77 posted...

For instance, every US talkshow that brought up the Canadian election in 2015 was blatantly against Harper.

Everyone was blatantly against Harper. Harper was a douche.
---

Are you comparing a US network for US audiences talking about world politics to a country using its covert operations to actively spread misinformation to another country to sway a election?

TigerTycoon posted...

Russia is currently the scapegoat country because they refuse to be part of a centralized world government.

It doesn't matter if it happened or not, it doesn't matter if the U.S. and other countries are being hypocrites, it's a witch hunt against Trump because every other politician and all the corporations want Trump impeached because he's impeding their "business as usual (corruption)".

I haven't read so much bullshit in a post in at least a week.

Lil69Leo posted...

Are you comparing a US network for US audiences talking about world politics to a country using its covert operations to actively spread misinformation to another country to sway a election?

John Oliver literally did a segment explicitly stating directly to Canadians not to vote for Stephen Harper. Canadians make up at least 10% of his audience.

There is no evidence to support that the Russian government was involved in the election misinformation in the US. Are you telling me Russian basement dwelling gopniks have a more powerful media and social impact than international network prime time television?
---

faramir77 posted...

This is much more blatant and effective as a meddling strategy than what happened in the US in 2016.

Are you claiming that network/cable television has a broader international reach and ability to spread than social media? Do you have evidence to support this assertion? Are you aware of what year it is?

In addition, are you arguing that media spreading what, in most cases, were well-researched facts in a humorous format is somehow more insidious than what, in most cases, were blatant fabrications specifically designed in a way that would maximize their ability to spread, usually by appealing to outrage?
---

faramir77 posted...

Lil69Leo posted...

Are you comparing a US network for US audiences talking about world politics to a country using its covert operations to actively spread misinformation to another country to sway a election?

John Oliver literally did a segment explicitly stating directly to Canadians not to vote for Stephen Harper. Canadians make up at least 10% of his audience.

There is no evidence to support that the Russian government was involved in the election misinformation in the US. Are you telling me Russian basement dwelling gopniks have a more powerful media and social impact than international network prime time television?

You might as well give up. These people will close their ears to anything that makes a hypocrite out of them.

dainkinkaide posted...

faramir77 posted...

This is much more blatant and effective as a meddling strategy than what happened in the US in 2016.

Are you claiming that network/cable television has a broader international reach and ability to spread than social media? Do you have evidence to support this assertion? Are you aware of what year it is?

In addition, are you arguing that media spreading what, in most cases, were well-researched facts in a humorous format is somehow more insidious than what, in most cases, were blatant fabrications specifically designed in a way that would maximize their ability to spread, usually by appealing to outrage?

Funny. I spent tons of time on the internet the past couple years and I don't believe o saw any of this misinformation that people claim was so rampant. If it was out there, it couldn't have been too powerful I guess

On top of this, an overwhelming portion of trump votes were in rural areas... Ya know, people who don't go cruising Facebook for memes

faramir77 posted...

Lil69Leo posted...

Are you comparing a US network for US audiences talking about world politics to a country using its covert operations to actively spread misinformation to another country to sway a election?

John Oliver literally did a segment explicitly stating directly to Canadians not to vote for Stephen Harper. Canadians make up at least 10% of his audience.

There is no evidence to support that the Russian government was involved in the election misinformation in the US. Are you telling me Russian basement dwelling gopniks have a more powerful media and social impact than international network prime time television?

... What?

How misinformed are you?

If the truth getting leaked is considered "meddling," maybe people should just try not being completely shitty human beings then there'd be nothing to hide.
---

OhhhJa posted...

On top of this, an overwhelming portion of trump votes were in rural areas... Ya know, people who don't go cruising Facebook for memes

People in rural areas that would've overwhelmingly voted for anyone who had an R beside their name on the ballot as shown by historical election results. Because of the way the electoral college works, those overwhelmingly Republican rural voters actually had next to no impact on the results of the election, in much the same way that overwhelmingly Democratic voters in large metropolitan areas have next to no impact on election results.

Because those votes can be taken as given.
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

If the truth getting leaked is considered "meddling," maybe people should just try not being completely shitty human beings then there'd be nothing to hide.

http://users.content.ytmnd.com/e/b/3/eb378df6ef62ec2a3067b223585afe4a.gif
---

The meddling never happened. At all.

There is absolutely no evidence that Russia tampered with our election, or colluded with Trump.

TheWorstPoster posted...

The meddling never happened. At all.

There is absolutely no evidence that Russia tampered with our election, or colluded with Trump.

There's evidence you need to get a job or forever be branded a welcher.
---

faramir77 posted...

Literally all that happened was a bunch of Russians posted Pepe memes on the internet and paid for Trump ads using fake accounts.

Uh, did you forget that they may have been behind the DNC hack?

faramir77 posted...

The US meddles in much more blatant, direct methods in other elections and nobody ever makes a scandal from it. For instance, every US talkshow that brought up the Canadian election in 2015 was blatantly against Harper. The same happened in France this year with Marine Le Pen. This is much more blatant and effective as a meddling strategy than what happened in the US in 2016.

While that's exerting influence, it's not really "meddling." It's also not as egregious as Hillary Clinton accusing Russia of rigging its elections.

TigerTycoon posted...

Russia is currently the scapegoat country because they refuse to be part of a centralized world government.

Well, more specifically because they're in a position to challenge the US but otherwise yeah, the fact that they haven't gone along with the West's choices has made them the West's enemy.

adjl posted...

faramir77 posted...

For instance, every US talkshow that brought up the Canadian election in 2015 was blatantly against Harper.

Everyone was blatantly against Harper. Harper was a douche.

And Trudeau is a douche. Your point?
---

Lil69Leo posted...

Are you comparing a US network for US audiences talking about world politics to a country using its covert operations to actively spread misinformation to another country to sway a election?

...you're aware that the US also engages in those tactics, right? And much worse? When it comes to destabilizing governments, few can compete with the US.

faramir77 posted...

There is no evidence to support that the Russian government was involved in the election misinformation in the US.

Technically no? Some of the stuff was traced as specifically coming from Russia and security experts believed that the groups were often paid by the Russian government, but I can't remember if we saw a smoking gun.

dainkinkaide posted...

faramir77 posted...

This is much more blatant and effective as a meddling strategy than what happened in the US in 2016.

Are you claiming that network/cable television has a broader international reach and ability to spread than social media? Do you have evidence to support this assertion? Are you aware of what year it is?

In addition, are you arguing that media spreading what, in most cases, were well-researched facts in a humorous format is somehow more insidious than what, in most cases, were blatant fabrications specifically designed in a way that would maximize their ability to spread, usually by appealing to outrage?

I think you're ignoring that the greatest social media-sharing often ORIGINATES from conventional media, a fact that internet darling John Oliver -- whose segments often went viral -- openly acknowledges.
---

DNC hack:
was as inside job trying to masquerade as Russian hacking. an intelligence group called VIPS proved that point a month ago, that is was 99% inside job--Russians not involved. since then, we have heard nothing again about Russia conspiracy: no rebuttal to VIPS findings, no MSM articles decrying Trump and Russia ties.

Mueller Special Counsel for Russia Investigation:
months and months of investigation, yet no concrete evidence of Trump collusion with Russia. best they could find was circumstantial evidence that Trump Jr. may have met with Russian lawyer that one time. again, nothing substantial from this angle. on the other hand, in the same time frame, this same special counsel uncovered more DNC corruption amongst some of Clinton's closest advisors.

What's that saying? When you point a finger at someone, there are three fingers pointing back at yourself.
---

Because it's looking likely that Trump promised them a number of foreign policy changes in exchange. Our democracy can't be for sale like that.
---

Amuseum posted...

DNC hack:
was as inside job trying to masquerade as Russian hacking. an intelligence group called VIPS proved that point a month ago, that is was 99% inside job--Russians not involved. since then, we have heard nothing again about Russia conspiracy: no rebuttal to VIPS findings, no MSM articles decrying Trump and Russia ties.

Mueller Special Counsel for Russia Investigation:
months and months of investigation, yet no concrete evidence of Trump collusion with Russia. best they could find was circumstantial evidence that Trump Jr. may have met with Russian lawyer that one time. again, nothing substantial from this angle. on the other hand, in the same time frame, this same special counsel uncovered more DNC corruption amongst some of Clinton's closest advisors.

What's that saying? When you point a finger at someone, there are three fingers pointing back at yourself.

It's a pity that claim has been debunked.

Amuseum posted...

DNC hack:
was as inside job trying to masquerade as Russian hacking. an intelligence group called VIPS proved that point a month ago, that is was 99% inside job--Russians not involved. since then, we have heard nothing again about Russia conspiracy: no rebuttal to VIPS findings, no MSM articles decrying Trump and Russia ties.

...what? That's just an insane claim.

Amuseum posted...

Mueller Special Counsel for Russia Investigation:
months and months of investigation, yet no concrete evidence of Trump collusion with Russia. best they could find was circumstantial evidence that Trump Jr. may have met with Russian lawyer that one time. again, nothing substantial from this angle. on the other hand, in the same time frame, this same special counsel uncovered more DNC corruption amongst some of Clinton's closest advisors.

Honestly, it probably won't turn up anything and, even if it does, it's extremely unlikely to link anything to Trump. People have tried to spin it as the mere decision for Don Jr to meet with the lawyer constitutes a crime but, if that was the case, we'd probably have heard more of it by now.
---

Zeus posted...

Honestly, it probably won't turn up anything and, even if it does, it's extremely unlikely to link anything to Trump. People have tried to spin it as the mere decision for Don Jr to meet with the lawyer constitutes a crime but, if that was the case, we'd probably have heard more of it by now.

People must be used to leaks or something. Why would Mueller publicly disclose his findings and keep the people up to date on his investigation?

Using foreign money to influence a US election is a crime, plain and simple.

Deal with it.
---

Wasn't the narrative "there was no Russian meddling?" When did the goalposts get changed to "there was meddling but what is the problem?"
---

Lil69Leo posted...

Are you comparing a US network for US audiences talking about world politics to a country using its covert operations to actively spread misinformation to another country to sway a election?

uncovering the truth = misinformation?
---

Doctor Foxx posted...

Wasn't the narrative "there was no Russian meddling?" When did the goalposts get changed to "there was meddling but what is the problem?"

Once the kids were forced to admit they set up a meeting hoping to get dirt from Russia on Hillary because they wanted Trump to win.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Doctor Foxx posted...

Wasn't the narrative "there was no Russian meddling?" When did the goalposts get changed to "there was meddling but what is the problem?"

Once the kids were forced to admit they set up a meeting hoping to get dirt from Russia on Hillary because they wanted Trump to win.

thats just them getting information from someone. shouldn't even be a crime.

if it had been some random american nobody would have made a fuss
---

Krazy_Kirby posted...

BlackScythe0 posted...

Doctor Foxx posted...

Wasn't the narrative "there was no Russian meddling?" When did the goalposts get changed to "there was meddling but what is the problem?"

Once the kids were forced to admit they set up a meeting hoping to get dirt from Russia on Hillary because they wanted Trump to win.

thats just them getting information from someone. shouldn't even be a crime.

if it had been some random american nobody would have made a fuss

Yea, thats just why Al Gore handed the video he got from someone who wanted to help him to the FBI.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Zeus posted...

Honestly, it probably won't turn up anything and, even if it does, it's extremely unlikely to link anything to Trump. People have tried to spin it as the mere decision for Don Jr to meet with the lawyer constitutes a crime but, if that was the case, we'd probably have heard more of it by now.

People must be used to leaks or something. Why would Mueller publicly disclose his findings and keep the people up to date on his investigation?

Given that they can't keep anything else quiet, why would you assume things would start now? Keep in mind that James Comey's firing hit the press before Comey learned about it.

Mead posted...

Using foreign money to influence a US election is a crime, plain and simple.

Deal with it.

I'm behind on my Russian conspiracy theories. What's this one about?

Doctor Foxx posted...

Wasn't the narrative "there was no Russian meddling?" When did the goalposts get changed to "there was meddling but what is the problem?"

Probably when the definition of "meddling" got changed. Especially since a lot of things people are calling "meddling" now -- such as running bad PR against candidates -- are things other nations have literally been doing all along without anybody criticizing it.

Otherwise, if Russia was actually behind the DNC hack -- which, by the way, we only really have the DNC's word for because they handed over their consultant's findings to the intelligence agencies rather than any hardware -- that's clearly meddling and a problem. However, a lot of the claims of meddling are speculative at best where we can track IP activity to Russia -- assuming that they aren't just tunneling -- but that doesn't automatically entail that the government is behind it.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Doctor Foxx posted...

Wasn't the narrative "there was no Russian meddling?" When did the goalposts get changed to "there was meddling but what is the problem?"

Once the kids were forced to admit they set up a meeting hoping to get dirt from Russia on Hillary because they wanted Trump to win.

Which had nothing to do with the meddling claims we'd heard all along and, more importantly, resulted in nothing considering that even if they got something they never used it.

Krazy_Kirby posted...

thats just them getting information from someone. shouldn't even be a crime.

if it had been some random american nobody would have made a fuss

It's a somewhat silly double-standard, and overlooks that information can be more important than how it's acquired. Granted, with a foreign power as the source (or a super-pac, corporation, etc), the information isn't always reliable because of possible agendas.
---