Edit: Disregard the emoji

That was one one very small part of a large and complex investigation, and frankly it was a thread that ended up not going anywhere useful, stop acting like it was some kind of linchpin for the whole thing. The findings of Mueller, and especially the Senate Intel Committee, are solid and damning. The only open question at this point is whether or not Trump knew what was going on with the contacts we now know happened between Russian agents and his campaign manager, personal attorney, son, daughter, son in law, longtime fixer, etc...

Do you know what that supposed lie you are hanging your hat on was, by the way? Clinesmith (the CIA lawyer) wrote into an email used for a warrant re-up (not the original warrant) that Carter Page was a CIA "subsource, not a source". Hardly material or relevant at all to the overall findings. They went over the whole series of investigations with a fine toothed comb, multiple times, only coming up with that and got a 6 months of probation sentence to show for it, before Durham's embarrassment if a probe ended up fizzling out with two trial aquittals.

HuMcK said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

This started with a lie about Carter Page that convinced a court to spy on an American citizen. The rest is just an effort to justify a series of malfeasance and abuse of power by government agencies for political purposes.

---

It started in earnest when the public learned that Don Jr had been explicitly offered assistance from the Russian government, then he accepted that offer and met with Russian government agents. Not investigating further after learning about that would have been straight up reckless stupidity. From that investigation we learned that Trump's campaign manager was indeed meeting with a Russian spy to coordinate strategy, and also that a different Russian honeypot spy had infiltrated the NRA to influence their election spending, among many other things.

Stop lying to yourself and others, the investigation was completely warranted, and largely found what it was looking for. If they hadn't found anything, there wouldn't still be such an unceasing drive years later to try and discredit the investigations.

---

Wow...

HuMcK said:

---

Edit: Disregard the emoji

That was one one very small part of a large and complex investigation, and frankly it was a thread that ended up not going anywhere useful, stop acting like it was some kind of linchpin for the whole thing. The findings of Mueller, and especially the Senate Intel Committee, are solid and damning. The only open question at this point is whether or not Trump knew what was going on with the contacts we now know happened between Russian agents and his campaign manager, personal attorney, son, daughter, son in law, longtime fixer, etc...

Do you know what that supposed lie you are hanging your hat on was, by the way? Clinesmith (the CIA lawyer) wrote into an email used for a warrant re-up (not the original warrant) that Carter Page was a CIA "subsource, not a source". Hardly material or relevant at all to the overall findings. They went over the whole series of investigations with a fine toothed comb, multiple times, only coming up with that and got a 6 months of probation sentence to show for it, before Durham's embarrassment if a probe ended up fizzling out with two trial aquittals.

---

Good thing we got all those convictions for espionage and collusion with a foreign government. Or at least indictments and charges. Oh wait...

The only embarrassment is your continued clinging on to something intended to discover spying and foreign collaboration in elections, when they ground out indictments for questionable business and tax dealings for periods well before Trump even thought about being a candidate. Just tell us you're happy with abuse of power and spying on citizens and move on.

In your first sentence you mock a lack of convictions or charges, then to end the post your last sentence make accusations of abuse of power that were never charged or convicted (in fact they were thoroughly refuted by multiple investigations). Really an impressive level of irony right there.

I am more than ok with spying on citizens suspected of working with foreign agents, especially ones who have been caught doing it before (like Carter Page was) and are in foreign places (again like Carter Page, who was in Moscow while being surveilled).

ATL Bear said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Edit: Disregard the emoji

That was one one very small part of a large and complex investigation, and frankly it was a thread that ended up not going anywhere useful, stop acting like it was some kind of linchpin for the whole thing. The findings of Mueller, and especially the Senate Intel Committee, are solid and damning. The only open question at this point is whether or not Trump knew what was going on with the contacts we now know happened between Russian agents and his campaign manager, personal attorney, son, daughter, son in law, longtime fixer, etc...

Do you know what that supposed lie you are hanging your hat on was, by the way? Clinesmith (the CIA lawyer) wrote into an email used for a warrant re-up (not the original warrant) that Carter Page was a CIA "subsource, not a source". Hardly material or relevant at all to the overall findings. They went over the whole series of investigations with a fine toothed comb, multiple times, only coming up with that and got a 6 months of probation sentence to show for it, before Durham's embarrassment if a probe ended up fizzling out with two trial aquittals.

---

Good thing we got all those convictions for espionage and collusion with a foreign government. Or at least indictments and charges. Oh wait...

The only embarrassment is your continued clinging on to something intended to discover spying and foreign collaboration in elections, when they ground out indictments for questionable business and tax dealings for periods well before Trump even thought about being a candidate. Just tell us you're happy with abuse of power and spying on citizens and move on.

---

That's the general problem with the Democrats today. Odd they can both want to Defund the Police and believe the police are infallible ... just depends on the day.

The fact people actually believe the Russian Hoax is still a thing demonstrates how ignorant so many are of basic reality ... of course, studies have demonstrated the more regressive one is the more disinformed.

HuMcK said:

---

In your first sentence you mock a lack of convictions or charges, then to end the post your last sentence make accusations of abuse of power that were never charged or convicted (in fact they were thoroughly refuted by multiple investigations). Really an impressive level of irony right there.

I am more than ok with spying on citizens suspected of working with foreign agents, especially ones who have been caught doing it before (like Carter Page was) and are in foreign places (again like Carter Page, who was in Moscow while being surveilled).

---

C'mon. Even the DOJ admitted they didn't have probable cause to say he was a foreign agent or acting as one, the one absolute criteria for spying on a US citizen, and the warrants were not obtained appropriately.

I can't believe you're still carrying water for this.

Golem said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

xxx yyy said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

So when do Sam, Hmuck, and/or C.Jordan show up to allegedly "debunk"?

---

Not surprised. I was never on board with the Russian panic.

---

So you acknowledge that it was all a total fabricated and deliberate LIE that was perpetuated for years by the dims and their teammates in the media(?).

---

Not a total fabrication. It was a legitimate national security investigation that was politicized and turned into a fishing expedition.

---

In theory, but not legitimately.

If it was legitimate, it would have revealed legitimate evidence of a national security threat.

---

And how, pray tell, can something be deemed legitimate or not, except by investigating it? We can criticize how the investigation was conducted, we can lament the fact that the dossier was made public, but in the early Fall of 2016 allegations from what at the time were deemed credible sources suggesting that attempts were being made to compromise a Presidential Candidate, was reason to having the FBI look into it. It was their job.

---

By evaluating the initial evidence to the point of 100% undeniable proof.

There's layers to this, its a two-part investigation. Investigation is brought on by investigating initial evidence. In this case the evidence was bogus...yet it was treated as legitimate despite the FBI actually knowing for a fact it was bs.

It's not their job to play politics, but they do.

---

There is good evidence of foreign influence campaigns. Even the study cited in the OP recognizes that.

---

The Russians have sought to influence our domestic politics through disinformation for the better part of a century. This time, however, it looks like the US government used information it knew to be false to justify getting search warrants. That does not constitute a legitimate investigation and that is not acceptable conduct for people who have taken an oath to defend the constitution of the United States.

---

I agree. The fact that there was misconduct in the course of the investigation doesn't mean the investigation itself was never legitimate.

---

No, just the basis for it and its execution. Other than that, yeah, great investigation.

---

The original basis had nothing to do with that.

---

You need to sue these posters for violating your 13th amendment rights. Watching you so thoroughly owned makes me embarrassed for you.

---

I assumed everyone had some basic knowledge of the Russiagate timeline. Evidently not.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Golem said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

xxx yyy said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

So when do Sam, Hmuck, and/or C.Jordan show up to allegedly "debunk"?

---

Not surprised. I was never on board with the Russian panic.

---

So you acknowledge that it was all a total fabricated and deliberate LIE that was perpetuated for years by the dims and their teammates in the media(?).

---

Not a total fabrication. It was a legitimate national security investigation that was politicized and turned into a fishing expedition.

---

In theory, but not legitimately.

If it was legitimate, it would have revealed legitimate evidence of a national security threat.

---

And how, pray tell, can something be deemed legitimate or not, except by investigating it? We can criticize how the investigation was conducted, we can lament the fact that the dossier was made public, but in the early Fall of 2016 allegations from what at the time were deemed credible sources suggesting that attempts were being made to compromise a Presidential Candidate, was reason to having the FBI look into it. It was their job.

---

By evaluating the initial evidence to the point of 100% undeniable proof.

There's layers to this, its a two-part investigation. Investigation is brought on by investigating initial evidence. In this case the evidence was bogus...yet it was treated as legitimate despite the FBI actually knowing for a fact it was bs.

It's not their job to play politics, but they do.

---

There is good evidence of foreign influence campaigns. Even the study cited in the OP recognizes that.

---

The Russians have sought to influence our domestic politics through disinformation for the better part of a century. This time, however, it looks like the US government used information it knew to be false to justify getting search warrants. That does not constitute a legitimate investigation and that is not acceptable conduct for people who have taken an oath to defend the constitution of the United States.

---

I agree. The fact that there was misconduct in the course of the investigation doesn't mean the investigation itself was never legitimate.

---

No, just the basis for it and its execution. Other than that, yeah, great investigation.

---

The original basis had nothing to do with that.

---

You need to sue these posters for violating your 13th amendment rights. Watching you so thoroughly owned makes me embarrassed for you.

---

I assumed everyone had some basic knowledge of the Russiagate timeline. Evidently not.

---

Perhaps they should subscribe to the publications you read, like "The Journal of I Just Pulled This Straight Out of My Ass." Then they can vacillate, equivocate, and obfuscate, all the while referring to evidence that doesn't support their point, as you do.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Not that we already did not know this was all fake news ... but even regressives acknowledge Russia hoax was a nothingburger.

Russian influence operations on Twitter in the 2016 presidential election reached relatively few users, most of whom were highly partisan Republicans, and the Russian accounts had no measurable impact in changing minds or influencing voter behavior, according to a study out this morning.

The study, which the New York University Center for Social Media and Politics helmed, explores the limits of what Russian disinformation and misinformation was able to achieve on one major social media platform in the 2016 elections.

---

No measurable impact is suspicious. I don't doubt the effect was minor, but given the demographics of Trump's win, to assume there was no impact because mostly partisan Republicans consumed the fake news would be a huge logical breakdown. He won not because he pulled Dems or independents, but because he got a record number of new voters to show up. Voters that had always been extreme right wing, but rarely actually voted.

So the study seems to be studying the wrong thing to reach its conclusion. I'm not about to read it but unless they have data proving that the fake news heavily consumed by this small minority of extremists, didn't motivate them to vote, the same extremists that he needed to win, that normally don't vote, its hogwash.

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Not that we already did not know this was all fake news ... but even regressives acknowledge Russia hoax was a nothingburger.

Russian influence operations on Twitter in the 2016 presidential election reached relatively few users, most of whom were highly partisan Republicans, and the Russian accounts had no measurable impact in changing minds or influencing voter behavior, according to a study out this morning.

The study, which the New York University Center for Social Media and Politics helmed, explores the limits of what Russian disinformation and misinformation was able to achieve on one major social media platform in the 2016 elections.

---

No measurable impact is suspicious. I don't doubt the effect was minor, but given the demographics of Trump's win, to assume there was no impact because mostly partisan Republicans consumed the fake news would be a huge logical breakdown. He won not because he pulled Dems or independents, but because he got a record number of new voters to show up. Voters that had always been extreme right wing, but rarely actually voted.

So the study seems to be studying the wrong thing to reach its conclusion. I'm not about to read it but unless they have data proving that the fake news heavily consumed by this small minority of extremists, didn't motivate them to vote, the same extremists that he needed to win, that normally don't vote, its hogwash.

---

I doubt there is any data to back that up ... odd "extreme right wing" voters would turnout in record numbers for basically a Democrat.

Out of curiosity, what is the definition of an "extreme right winger?"

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Not that we already did not know this was all fake news ... but even regressives acknowledge Russia hoax was a nothingburger.

Russian influence operations on Twitter in the 2016 presidential election reached relatively few users, most of whom were highly partisan Republicans, and the Russian accounts had no measurable impact in changing minds or influencing voter behavior, according to a study out this morning.

The study, which the New York University Center for Social Media and Politics helmed, explores the limits of what Russian disinformation and misinformation was able to achieve on one major social media platform in the 2016 elections.

---

No measurable impact is suspicious. I don't doubt the effect was minor, but given the demographics of Trump's win, to assume there was no impact because mostly partisan Republicans consumed the fake news would be a huge logical breakdown. He won not because he pulled Dems or independents, but because he got a record number of new voters to show up. Voters that had always been extreme right wing, but rarely actually voted.

So the study seems to be studying the wrong thing to reach its conclusion. I'm not about to read it but unless they have data proving that the fake news heavily consumed by this small minority of extremists, didn't motivate them to vote, the same extremists that he needed to win, that normally don't vote, its hogwash.

---

I doubt there is any data to back that up ... odd "extreme right wing" voters would turnout in record numbers for basically a Democrat.

Out of curiosity, what is the definition of an "extreme right winger?"

---

Someone who disagrees with me and has ever voted for a candidate without a "D."

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Not that we already did not know this was all fake news ... but even regressives acknowledge Russia hoax was a nothingburger.

Russian influence operations on Twitter in the 2016 presidential election reached relatively few users, most of whom were highly partisan Republicans, and the Russian accounts had no measurable impact in changing minds or influencing voter behavior, according to a study out this morning.

The study, which the New York University Center for Social Media and Politics helmed, explores the limits of what Russian disinformation and misinformation was able to achieve on one major social media platform in the 2016 elections.

---

No measurable impact is suspicious. I don't doubt the effect was minor, but given the demographics of Trump's win, to assume there was no impact because mostly partisan Republicans consumed the fake news would be a huge logical breakdown. He won not because he pulled Dems or independents, but because he got a record number of new voters to show up. Voters that had always been extreme right wing, but rarely actually voted.

So the study seems to be studying the wrong thing to reach its conclusion. I'm not about to read it but unless they have data proving that the fake news heavily consumed by this small minority of extremists, didn't motivate them to vote, the same extremists that he needed to win, that normally don't vote, its hogwash.

---

I doubt there is any data to back that up ... odd "extreme right wing" voters would turnout in record numbers for basically a Democrat.

Out of curiosity, what is the definition of an "extreme right winger?"

---

Tons of data was there right after the election. Its why the polls were so wrong about Hilary winning. Smaller right wing groups that normally didn't vote turned out in never seen percentages.

I don't have time to go back and look, but it was widely reported in 2016.

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Not that we already did not know this was all fake news ... but even regressives acknowledge Russia hoax was a nothingburger.

Russian influence operations on Twitter in the 2016 presidential election reached relatively few users, most of whom were highly partisan Republicans, and the Russian accounts had no measurable impact in changing minds or influencing voter behavior, according to a study out this morning.

The study, which the New York University Center for Social Media and Politics helmed, explores the limits of what Russian disinformation and misinformation was able to achieve on one major social media platform in the 2016 elections.

---

No measurable impact is suspicious. I don't doubt the effect was minor, but given the demographics of Trump's win, to assume there was no impact because mostly partisan Republicans consumed the fake news would be a huge logical breakdown. He won not because he pulled Dems or independents, but because he got a record number of new voters to show up. Voters that had always been extreme right wing, but rarely actually voted.

So the study seems to be studying the wrong thing to reach its conclusion. I'm not about to read it but unless they have data proving that the fake news heavily consumed by this small minority of extremists, didn't motivate them to vote, the same extremists that he needed to win, that normally don't vote, its hogwash.

---

I doubt there is any data to back that up ... odd "extreme right wing" voters would turnout in record numbers for basically a Democrat.

Out of curiosity, what is the definition of an "extreme right winger?"

---

Tons of data was there right after the election. Its why the polls were so wrong about Hilary winning. Smaller right wing groups that normally didn't vote turned out in never seen percentages.

I don't have time to go back and look, but it was widely reported in 2016.

---

Hillary lost because blue collar workers in the rust belt voted for Trump. Just ask Michael Moore.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Not that we already did not know this was all fake news ... but even regressives acknowledge Russia hoax was a nothingburger.

Russian influence operations on Twitter in the 2016 presidential election reached relatively few users, most of whom were highly partisan Republicans, and the Russian accounts had no measurable impact in changing minds or influencing voter behavior, according to a study out this morning.

The study, which the New York University Center for Social Media and Politics helmed, explores the limits of what Russian disinformation and misinformation was able to achieve on one major social media platform in the 2016 elections.

---

No measurable impact is suspicious. I don't doubt the effect was minor, but given the demographics of Trump's win, to assume there was no impact because mostly partisan Republicans consumed the fake news would be a huge logical breakdown. He won not because he pulled Dems or independents, but because he got a record number of new voters to show up. Voters that had always been extreme right wing, but rarely actually voted.

So the study seems to be studying the wrong thing to reach its conclusion. I'm not about to read it but unless they have data proving that the fake news heavily consumed by this small minority of extremists, didn't motivate them to vote, the same extremists that he needed to win, that normally don't vote, its hogwash.

---

I doubt there is any data to back that up ... odd "extreme right wing" voters would turnout in record numbers for basically a Democrat.

Out of curiosity, what is the definition of an "extreme right winger?"

---

Tons of data was there right after the election. Its why the polls were so wrong about Hilary winning. Smaller right wing groups that normally didn't vote turned out in never seen percentages.

I don't have time to go back and look, but it was widely reported in 2016.

---

Hillary lost because blue collar workers in the rust belt voted for Trump. Just ask Michael Moore.

---

She really lost because she didn't motivate a good Dem turnout. I wonder if she would have taken a little Russian propaganda. It was a tiny margin of victory, wouldn't have taken much. Probably the only person in America Trump could beat. Biden making a strong case though.

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Not that we already did not know this was all fake news ... but even regressives acknowledge Russia hoax was a nothingburger.

Russian influence operations on Twitter in the 2016 presidential election reached relatively few users, most of whom were highly partisan Republicans, and the Russian accounts had no measurable impact in changing minds or influencing voter behavior, according to a study out this morning.

The study, which the New York University Center for Social Media and Politics helmed, explores the limits of what Russian disinformation and misinformation was able to achieve on one major social media platform in the 2016 elections.

---

No measurable impact is suspicious. I don't doubt the effect was minor, but given the demographics of Trump's win, to assume there was no impact because mostly partisan Republicans consumed the fake news would be a huge logical breakdown. He won not because he pulled Dems or independents, but because he got a record number of new voters to show up. Voters that had always been extreme right wing, but rarely actually voted.

So the study seems to be studying the wrong thing to reach its conclusion. I'm not about to read it but unless they have data proving that the fake news heavily consumed by this small minority of extremists, didn't motivate them to vote, the same extremists that he needed to win, that normally don't vote, its hogwash.

---

I doubt there is any data to back that up ... odd "extreme right wing" voters would turnout in record numbers for basically a Democrat.

Out of curiosity, what is the definition of an "extreme right winger?"

---

Tons of data was there right after the election. Its why the polls were so wrong about Hilary winning. Smaller right wing groups that normally didn't vote turned out in never seen percentages.

I don't have time to go back and look, but it was widely reported in 2016.

---

Fair enough. You've always been an honest broker. Given all we've seen regarding fake news I don't give much credence to "reported." I just don't see a lifelong Democrat energizing conservatives - as noted his traditional Democrat message energized Democrats. I think the "extreme right wing" is just Idiocracy spin because TRUMP I S LITERALLY HITLER.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Not that we already did not know this was all fake news ... but even regressives acknowledge Russia hoax was a nothingburger.

Russian influence operations on Twitter in the 2016 presidential election reached relatively few users, most of whom were highly partisan Republicans, and the Russian accounts had no measurable impact in changing minds or influencing voter behavior, according to a study out this morning.

The study, which the New York University Center for Social Media and Politics helmed, explores the limits of what Russian disinformation and misinformation was able to achieve on one major social media platform in the 2016 elections.

---

No measurable impact is suspicious. I don't doubt the effect was minor, but given the demographics of Trump's win, to assume there was no impact because mostly partisan Republicans consumed the fake news would be a huge logical breakdown. He won not because he pulled Dems or independents, but because he got a record number of new voters to show up. Voters that had always been extreme right wing, but rarely actually voted.

So the study seems to be studying the wrong thing to reach its conclusion. I'm not about to read it but unless they have data proving that the fake news heavily consumed by this small minority of extremists, didn't motivate them to vote, the same extremists that he needed to win, that normally don't vote, its hogwash.

---

I doubt there is any data to back that up ... odd "extreme right wing" voters would turnout in record numbers for basically a Democrat.

Out of curiosity, what is the definition of an "extreme right winger?"

---

Tons of data was there right after the election. Its why the polls were so wrong about Hilary winning. Smaller right wing groups that normally didn't vote turned out in never seen percentages.

I don't have time to go back and look, but it was widely reported in 2016.

---

Fair enough. You've always been an honest broker. Given all we've seen regarding fake news I don't give much credence to "reported." I just don't see a lifelong Democrat energizing conservatives - as noted his traditional Democrat message energized Democrats. I think the "extreme right wing" is just Idiocracy spin because TRUMP I S LITERALLY HITLER.

---

Part of it was evangelicals. 2 weeks before the primary, Hilary said she would have any scotus nominee sign a contract promising to not revisit Roe v Wade. Certain groups of pro lifers really showed up, and it hurt turnout for Hilary among pro life independents.

Trump was a disaster but no genocidal maniac. He did attract some far right extremists (not talking of pro lifers) that for various reasons hadn't shown up to vote for more traditional Republicans nominees. Hard to say whether the left really overreacted or not. Trump certainly begged for criticism. Hard to feel bad for the guy. He made his bed and reveled in it. Still is. Loves it when AOC trashes him, don't you think.? Sorry I know these are disjointed thoughts.

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Not that we already did not know this was all fake news ... but even regressives acknowledge Russia hoax was a nothingburger.

Russian influence operations on Twitter in the 2016 presidential election reached relatively few users, most of whom were highly partisan Republicans, and the Russian accounts had no measurable impact in changing minds or influencing voter behavior, according to a study out this morning.

The study, which the New York University Center for Social Media and Politics helmed, explores the limits of what Russian disinformation and misinformation was able to achieve on one major social media platform in the 2016 elections.

---

No measurable impact is suspicious. I don't doubt the effect was minor, but given the demographics of Trump's win, to assume there was no impact because mostly partisan Republicans consumed the fake news would be a huge logical breakdown. He won not because he pulled Dems or independents, but because he got a record number of new voters to show up. Voters that had always been extreme right wing, but rarely actually voted.

So the study seems to be studying the wrong thing to reach its conclusion. I'm not about to read it but unless they have data proving that the fake news heavily consumed by this small minority of extremists, didn't motivate them to vote, the same extremists that he needed to win, that normally don't vote, its hogwash.

---

I doubt there is any data to back that up ... odd "extreme right wing" voters would turnout in record numbers for basically a Democrat.

Out of curiosity, what is the definition of an "extreme right winger?"

---

Tons of data was there right after the election. Its why the polls were so wrong about Hilary winning. Smaller right wing groups that normally didn't vote turned out in never seen percentages.

I don't have time to go back and look, but it was widely reported in 2016.

---

Fair enough. You've always been an honest broker. Given all we've seen regarding fake news I don't give much credence to "reported." I just don't see a lifelong Democrat energizing conservatives - as noted his traditional Democrat messag energized Democrats. I think the "extreme right wing" is just Idiocracy spin because TRUMP I S LITERALLY HITLER.

---

Part of it was evangelicals. 2 weeks before the primary, Hilary said she would have any scotus nominee sign a contract promising to not revisit Roe v Wade. Certain groups of pro lifers really showed up, and it hurt turnout for Hilary among pro life independents.

Trump was a disaster but no genocidal maniac. He did attract some far right extremists (not talking of pro lifers) that for various reasons hadn't shown up to vote for more traditional Republicans nominees. Hard to say whether the left really overreacted or not. Trump certainly begged for criticism. Hard to feel bad for the guy. He made his bed and reveled in it. Still is. Loves it when AOC trashes him, don't you think.? Sorry I know these are disjointed thoughts.

---

Whenever I ask this question, the response always is crickets ... you typed "Trump was a disaster." So what policies or results during his administration did you consider disastrous? Was it criminal justice reform? Was it reducing illegal immigration? Was it a record stock market rally? Was it record growth? Was it record low unemployment, especially among minorities? Was it not launching a foreign war? Was it historic Middle East peace deals? Was it protecting the working class via reversing blue-collar-killing trade deals? What was a disaster? (Specifically)

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Not that we already did not know this was all fake news ... but even regressives acknowledge Russia hoax was a nothingburger.

Russian influence operations on Twitter in the 2016 presidential election reached relatively few users, most of whom were highly partisan Republicans, and the Russian accounts had no measurable impact in changing minds or influencing voter behavior, according to a study out this morning.

The study, which the New York University Center for Social Media and Politics helmed, explores the limits of what Russian disinformation and misinformation was able to achieve on one major social media platform in the 2016 elections.

---

No measurable impact is suspicious. I don't doubt the effect was minor, but given the demographics of Trump's win, to assume there was no impact because mostly partisan Republicans consumed the fake news would be a huge logical breakdown. He won not because he pulled Dems or independents, but because he got a record number of new voters to show up. Voters that had always been extreme right wing, but rarely actually voted.

So the study seems to be studying the wrong thing to reach its conclusion. I'm not about to read it but unless they have data proving that the fake news heavily consumed by this small minority of extremists, didn't motivate them to vote, the same extremists that he needed to win, that normally don't vote, its hogwash.

---

I doubt there is any data to back that up ... odd "extreme right wing" voters would turnout in record numbers for basically a Democrat.

Out of curiosity, what is the definition of an "extreme right winger?"

---

Tons of data was there right after the election. Its why the polls were so wrong about Hilary winning. Smaller right wing groups that normally didn't vote turned out in never seen percentages.

I don't have time to go back and look, but it was widely reported in 2016.

---

Fair enough. You've always been an honest broker. Given all we've seen regarding fake news I don't give much credence to "reported." I just don't see a lifelong Democrat energizing conservatives - as noted his traditional Democrat messag energized Democrats. I think the "extreme right wing" is just Idiocracy spin because TRUMP I S LITERALLY HITLER.

---

Part of it was evangelicals. 2 weeks before the primary, Hilary said she would have any scotus nominee sign a contract promising to not revisit Roe v Wade. Certain groups of pro lifers really showed up, and it hurt turnout for Hilary among pro life independents.

Trump was a disaster but no genocidal maniac. He did attract some far right extremists (not talking of pro lifers) that for various reasons hadn't shown up to vote for more traditional Republicans nominees. Hard to say whether the left really overreacted or not. Trump certainly begged for criticism. Hard to feel bad for the guy. He made his bed and reveled in it. Still is. Loves it when AOC trashes him, don't you think.? Sorry I know these are disjointed thoughts.

---

Whenever I ask this question, the response always is crickets ... you typed "Trump was a disaster." So what policies or results during his administration did you consider disastrous? Was it criminal justice reform? Was it reducing illegal immigration? Was it a record stock market rally? Was it record growth? Was it record low unemployment, especially among minorities? Was it not launching a foreign war? Was it historic Middle East peace deals? Was it protecting the working class via reversing blue-collar-killing trade deals? What was a disaster? (Specifically)

---

it was success outside of democrat planks and tweets. Mostly tweets

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Not that we already did not know this was all fake news ... but even regressives acknowledge Russia hoax was a nothingburger.

Russian influence operations on Twitter in the 2016 presidential election reached relatively few users, most of whom were highly partisan Republicans, and the Russian accounts had no measurable impact in changing minds or influencing voter behavior, according to a study out this morning.

The study, which the New York University Center for Social Media and Politics helmed, explores the limits of what Russian disinformation and misinformation was able to achieve on one major social media platform in the 2016 elections.

---

No measurable impact is suspicious. I don't doubt the effect was minor, but given the demographics of Trump's win, to assume there was no impact because mostly partisan Republicans consumed the fake news would be a huge logical breakdown. He won not because he pulled Dems or independents, but because he got a record number of new voters to show up. Voters that had always been extreme right wing, but rarely actually voted.

So the study seems to be studying the wrong thing to reach its conclusion. I'm not about to read it but unless they have data proving that the fake news heavily consumed by this small minority of extremists, didn't motivate them to vote, the same extremists that he needed to win, that normally don't vote, its hogwash.

---

I doubt there is any data to back that up ... odd "extreme right wing" voters would turnout in record numbers for basically a Democrat.

Out of curiosity, what is the definition of an "extreme right winger?"

---

Tons of data was there right after the election. Its why the polls were so wrong about Hilary winning. Smaller right wing groups that normally didn't vote turned out in never seen percentages.

I don't have time to go back and look, but it was widely reported in 2016.

---

Fair enough. You've always been an honest broker. Given all we've seen regarding fake news I don't give much credence to "reported." I just don't see a lifelong Democrat energizing conservatives - as noted his traditional Democrat messag energized Democrats. I think the "extreme right wing" is just Idiocracy spin because TRUMP I S LITERALLY HITLER.

---

Part of it was evangelicals. 2 weeks before the primary, Hilary said she would have any scotus nominee sign a contract promising to not revisit Roe v Wade. Certain groups of pro lifers really showed up, and it hurt turnout for Hilary among pro life independents.

Trump was a disaster but no genocidal maniac. He did attract some far right extremists (not talking of pro lifers) that for various reasons hadn't shown up to vote for more traditional Republicans nominees. Hard to say whether the left really overreacted or not. Trump certainly begged for criticism. Hard to feel bad for the guy. He made his bed and reveled in it. Still is. Loves it when AOC trashes him, don't you think.? Sorry I know these are disjointed thoughts.

---

Whenever I ask this question, the response always is crickets ... you typed "Trump was a disaster." So what policies or results during his administration did you consider disastrous? Was it criminal justice reform? Was it reducing illegal immigration? Was it a record stock market rally? Was it record growth? Was it record low unemployment, especially among minorities? Was it not launching a foreign war? Was it historic Middle East peace deals? Was it protecting the working class via reversing blue-collar-killing trade deals? What was a disaster? (Specifically)

---

Oh let me compile a list. I'm shocked I don't have a coypasta ready.

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Not that we already did not know this was all fake news ... but even regressives acknowledge Russia hoax was a nothingburger.

Russian influence operations on Twitter in the 2016 presidential election reached relatively few users, most of whom were highly partisan Republicans, and the Russian accounts had no measurable impact in changing minds or influencing voter behavior, according to a study out this morning.

The study, which the New York University Center for Social Media and Politics helmed, explores the limits of what Russian disinformation and misinformation was able to achieve on one major social media platform in the 2016 elections.

---

No measurable impact is suspicious. I don't doubt the effect was minor, but given the demographics of Trump's win, to assume there was no impact because mostly partisan Republicans consumed the fake news would be a huge logical breakdown. He won not because he pulled Dems or independents, but because he got a record number of new voters to show up. Voters that had always been extreme right wing, but rarely actually voted.

So the study seems to be studying the wrong thing to reach its conclusion. I'm not about to read it but unless they have data proving that the fake news heavily consumed by this small minority of extremists, didn't motivate them to vote, the same extremists that he needed to win, that normally don't vote, its hogwash.

---

I doubt there is any data to back that up ... odd "extreme right wing" voters would turnout in record numbers for basically a Democrat.

Out of curiosity, what is the definition of an "extreme right winger?"

---

Tons of data was there right after the election. Its why the polls were so wrong about Hilary winning. Smaller right wing groups that normally didn't vote turned out in never seen percentages.

I don't have time to go back and look, but it was widely reported in 2016.

---

Fair enough. You've always been an honest broker. Given all we've seen regarding fake news I don't give much credence to "reported." I just don't see a lifelong Democrat energizing conservatives - as noted his traditional Democrat messag energized Democrats. I think the "extreme right wing" is just Idiocracy spin because TRUMP I S LITERALLY HITLER.

---

Part of it was evangelicals. 2 weeks before the primary, Hilary said she would have any scotus nominee sign a contract promising to not revisit Roe v Wade. Certain groups of pro lifers really showed up, and it hurt turnout for Hilary among pro life independents.

Trump was a disaster but no genocidal maniac. He did attract some far right extremists (not talking of pro lifers) that for various reasons hadn't shown up to vote for more traditional Republicans nominees. Hard to say whether the left really overreacted or not. Trump certainly begged for criticism. Hard to feel bad for the guy. He made his bed and reveled in it. Still is. Loves it when AOC trashes him, don't you think.? Sorry I know these are disjointed thoughts.

---

Whenever I ask this question, the response always is crickets ... you typed "Trump was a disaster." So what policies or results during his administration did you consider disastrous? Was it criminal justice reform? Was it reducing illegal immigration? Was it a record stock market rally? Was it record growth? Was it record low unemployment, especially among minorities? Was it not launching a foreign war? Was it historic Middle East peace deals? Was it protecting the working class via reversing blue-collar-killing trade deals? What was a disaster? (Specifically)

---

Oh let me compile a list. I'm shocked I don't have a coypasta ready.

---

I'll help you with your list:

(1). Too many mean tweets that hurt a lot of snowflakes wittle feelings.

(2). There isn't one.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Not that we already did not know this was all fake news ... but even regressives acknowledge Russia hoax was a nothingburger.

Russian influence operations on Twitter in the 2016 presidential election reached relatively few users, most of whom were highly partisan Republicans, and the Russian accounts had no measurable impact in changing minds or influencing voter behavior, according to a study out this morning.

The study, which the New York University Center for Social Media and Politics helmed, explores the limits of what Russian disinformation and misinformation was able to achieve on one major social media platform in the 2016 elections.

---

No measurable impact is suspicious. I don't doubt the effect was minor, but given the demographics of Trump's win, to assume there was no impact because mostly partisan Republicans consumed the fake news would be a huge logical breakdown. He won not because he pulled Dems or independents, but because he got a record number of new voters to show up. Voters that had always been extreme right wing, but rarely actually voted.

So the study seems to be studying the wrong thing to reach its conclusion. I'm not about to read it but unless they have data proving that the fake news heavily consumed by this small minority of extremists, didn't motivate them to vote, the same extremists that he needed to win, that normally don't vote, its hogwash.

---

I doubt there is any data to back that up ... odd "extreme right wing" voters would turnout in record numbers for basically a Democrat.

Out of curiosity, what is the definition of an "extreme right winger?"

---

Tons of data was there right after the election. Its why the polls were so wrong about Hilary winning. Smaller right wing groups that normally didn't vote turned out in never seen percentages.

I don't have time to go back and look, but it was widely reported in 2016.

---

Fair enough. You've always been an honest broker. Given all we've seen regarding fake news I don't give much credence to "reported." I just don't see a lifelong Democrat energizing conservatives - as noted his traditional Democrat messag energized Democrats. I think the "extreme right wing" is just Idiocracy spin because TRUMP I S LITERALLY HITLER.

---

Part of it was evangelicals. 2 weeks before the primary, Hilary said she would have any scotus nominee sign a contract promising to not revisit Roe v Wade. Certain groups of pro lifers really showed up, and it hurt turnout for Hilary among pro life independents.

Trump was a disaster but no genocidal maniac. He did attract some far right extremists (not talking of pro lifers) that for various reasons hadn't shown up to vote for more traditional Republicans nominees. Hard to say whether the left really overreacted or not. Trump certainly begged for criticism. Hard to feel bad for the guy. He made his bed and reveled in it. Still is. Loves it when AOC trashes him, don't you think.? Sorry I know these are disjointed thoughts.

---

Whenever I ask this question, the response always is crickets ... you typed "Trump was a disaster." So what policies or results during his administration did you consider disastrous? Was it criminal justice reform? Was it reducing illegal immigration? Was it a record stock market rally? Was it record growth? Was it record low unemployment, especially among minorities? Was it not launching a foreign war? Was it historic Middle East peace deals? Was it protecting the working class via reversing blue-collar-killing trade deals? What was a disaster? (Specifically)

---

Trump's biggest mistakes were making Fauci the public face of Covid-19 response and being on board with lockdowns and money printing. A really solid 3 years followed by a terrible 4th year.

He Hate Me said:

---

Trump's biggest mistakes were making Fauci the public face of Covid-19 response and being on board with lockdowns and money printing. A really solid 3 years followed by a terrible 4th year.

---

Those "solid" 3 Trump years saw fewer jobs created than Obama's last 3 years, lower GDP growth than Obama's last 3 years (after Trump laughably promised a minimum of 3% but maybe all the way up to 6% growth due to his tax cut), and Trump roughly doubled the budget deficit from what Obama left him (meaning the economic numbers he managed were much more reliant on government spending than Obama's). If those first 3 years were "good", then Obama's last 3 were great, because he beat Trump's numbers in basically every metric except unemployment rate...which Trump got to by simply following the trend line that was left for him by Obama. The 2017 tax cuts also blew a giant hole in the budget for no appreciable gain to the overall economy (and btw the tax cuts for us little people start expiring this year, only the corporate tax cuts were permanent).

Then of course there are the agreements and trade deals Trump killed but never replaced (TPP and JCPOA chief among them) resulting in a net loss for the US. I say it often enough to sound like a broken record, but the TPP would be such a valuable tool to have against China right now. Then there was that time he publicly berated the Fed into lowering interest rates when they should have been increased, which painted the Fed into the corner they now find themselves clawing out of. And those are just economic decisions, the corruption scandals (financial and ethical) are frankly too numerous to list out. So too are his useless feuds with Dem (and some GOP) governors, along with allied world leaders, who didn't sufficiently kiss his ass enough.

That is far from a comprehensive list. The Trump Presidency ranks down around the likes of A Johnson and James Buchanan, the worst Presidents in our history. The best that can be said about it is Trump inherited a booming economy in a time of relative peace, and he managed not to wreck it for the first three years while he stumbled along from one embarrassing scandal to the next, but then year four happened. And then he cemented his infamously horrid legacy on January 6th, 2021. Of course let's also not forget that he almost singlehandedly handed the Senate to the Dems (twice!), and likely the House too. And none of that even touches on the Russia scandal, which is easily on par with or worse than Nixon and Watergate.

Obama had no economy to speak of during his Presidency. Go gaslight some other board, you dim bulb.

He Hate Me said:

---

Obama had no economy to speak of during his Presidency. Go gaslight some other board, you dim bulb.

---

Seriously. Obama has the slowest post-recession recovery in history and that idiot thinks he killed it. We have a lot of disinformation.

He Hate Me said:

---

Obama had no economy to speak of during his Presidency. Go gaslight some other board, you dim bulb.

---

Sometimes you can tell the strength of someone's argument by the abject weakness of the rebuttal offered. This is one of those times. I gave you number comparisons and hard data, but neither you nor Bergeron could manage a substantive rebuttal at all. Speaks volumes.

HuMcK said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Obama had no economy to speak of during his Presidency. Go gaslight some other board, you dim bulb.

---

Sometimes you can tell the strength of someone's argument by the abject weakness of the rebuttal offered. This is one of those times. I gave you number comparisons and hard data, but neither you nor Bergeron could manage a substantive rebuttal at all. Speaks volumes.

---

And sometimes a dim bulb just needs to be called what it is. I have no doubt in 6 years you will proclaim that Joe Biden was strong on illegal immigration and a defender of our Southern border.

Pretty amazing how the Russia Hoax was coordinated.

Left-wing Think Tank Promulgated Russian Hoax:

A left-wing think tank erroneously claiming to track Russian online activity was responsible for thousands of bogus stories asserting the nation's influence in US politics, according to the latest batch of Twitter Files.

The Hamilton 68 "dashboard" was the brainchild of former FBI special agent and MSNBC contributor Clint Watts and operated under the Alliance for Securing Democracy, a think tank founded in 2017 shortly after former President Trump took office.

The ASD Advisory Council included such figures as top Clinton ally John Podesta, Obama-era acting CIA Director Michael Morell, former US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul, and former conservative activist Bill Kristol.

The latest Twitter Files disclosure, the 15th so far, revealed how Hamilton 68's Russian bot dashboard repeatedly insisted there was widespread and deep Russian penetration of social media and unveiled that Twitter executives frequently challenged those claims internally.

"I think we need to just call this out on the bullst is," Twitter's then-head of trust and safety Yoel Roth wrote in an October 2017 email. "Hamilton dashboard falsely accuses a bunch of legitimate right-leaning accounts of being Russian bots," he added in January 2018.

Emails in the disclosure show that Twitter's own internal audits repeatedly showed that accounts flagged by Hamilton 68 were not Russian bots.

"It was a scam. … Hamilton 68 simply collected a handful of mostly real, mostly American accounts, and described their organic conversations as Russian scheming," wrote Matt Taibbi, who released the latest tranche of files Friday.

Hamilton 68's pronouncements were used to allege a hidden Russian hand in US politics from hundreds, and possibly thousands, of news stories during the Trump years.

While Roth wanted to publicly push back against Hamilton 68, he was warned against taking on the politically connected group by Twitter's then-head of global policy communication, Emily Horne.

---

This is just too good: even after Bob Woodward tried to warn Washington Post reporters that they were peddling a scam, only to be met with strange incuriosity, a "feeding frenzy" erupted among reporters who fantasized that they were on the cusp of uncovering the next Watergate pic.twitter.com/gqxUTURxOb

— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) January 31, 2023

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Not that we already did not know this was all fake news ... but even regressives acknowledge Russia hoax was a nothingburger.

Russian influence operations on Twitter in the 2016 presidential election reached relatively few users, most of whom were highly partisan Republicans, and the Russian accounts had no measurable impact in changing minds or influencing voter behavior, according to a study out this morning.

The study, which the New York University Center for Social Media and Politics helmed, explores the limits of what Russian disinformation and misinformation was able to achieve on one major social media platform in the 2016 elections.

---

No measurable impact is suspicious. I don't doubt the effect was minor, but given the demographics of Trump's win, to assume there was no impact because mostly partisan Republicans consumed the fake news would be a huge logical breakdown. He won not because he pulled Dems or independents, but because he got a record number of new voters to show up. Voters that had always been extreme right wing, but rarely actually voted.

So the study seems to be studying the wrong thing to reach its conclusion. I'm not about to read it but unless they have data proving that the fake news heavily consumed by this small minority of extremists, didn't motivate them to vote, the same extremists that he needed to win, that normally don't vote, its hogwash.

---

I doubt there is any data to back that up ... odd "extreme right wing" voters would turnout in record numbers for basically a Democrat.

Out of curiosity, what is the definition of an "extreme right winger?"

---

Tons of data was there right after the election. Its why the polls were so wrong about Hilary winning. Smaller right wing groups that normally didn't vote turned out in never seen percentages.

I don't have time to go back and look, but it was widely reported in 2016.

---

No. Hillary lost not because of "small right wing groups" but because some 7.5 to 8.5 million Obama voters turned around and voted forTrump.

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/442753-clinton-suffered-most-from-obama-voters-voting-for-trump-in/

(Leftist publication Vox said that these voters switched because they were racist, which is a really stupid analysis even by Vox standards. https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm)

Consider this:

One of the most mainstream-media-reporters in history (Jeff Gerth) just published a 4-part investigative series on the media's serial failures on Russiagate, in one of the US's most mainstream venues (@CJR), and the named culprits and outlets are all ignoring it. https://t.co/Ck7Ezg6JOj

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) February 1, 2023

The fascists don't care - propaganda > truth!

For years, people ridiculed Trump's claim that he was a victim of fake news about alleged collusion with Russia. Now, a major new investigation by a Pulitzer-winning former NY Times reporter, in America's leading journalism magazine, proves that he was. https://t.co/6jbWwM4BaQ

— Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) February 1, 2023

MORE from Durham’s 306-page report, which @FDRLST has obtained: “FBI records prepared by [Peter] Strzok in February and March 2017 show that at the time of the opening of Crossfire Hurricane, the FBI had no information in its holdings indicating that at any time during the… https://t.co/vplXrRyGzs

— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) May 15, 2023