FAKE NEWS EXPOSED: A Service of PoliticalChat.com

[Chicks]

Poor Whell. He's been supporting crooks and liars for years without actually knowing they were crooks and liars, something the rest of us knew all along. Sad!

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Translated: I got caught spinning and not reading my own linked articles at the same time, so I better leave well enough alone.

Uh, no. In summary, despite your lengthy diatribe, three facts remain true.

1. The Twitter Files story is a big, fat nothingburger.

2. The WashPost coverage of the MAGA dweeb on the Mall is not analogous to Fox News' coverage of Dominion Voting Systems.

3. Russiagate was not a hoax.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Uh, no. In summary, despite your lengthy diatribe, three facts remain true.

1. The Twitter Files story is a big, fat nothingburger.

2. The WashPost coverage of the MAGA dweeb on the Mall is not analogous to Fox News' coverage of Dominion Voting Systems.

3. Russiagate was not a hoax.

A bipartisan report released Tuesday by the Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee cuts through the chaff. The simplicity of the scheme has always been staring us in the face: Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign sought and maintained close contacts with Russian government officials who were helping him get elected. The Trump campaign accepted their offers of help. The campaign secretly provided Russian officials with key polling data. The campaign coordinated the timing of the release of stolen information to hurt Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

This is from a NYT editorial, not a random opinion piece. I remembered reading it when it was first published.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/19/o...16-report.html

[RickeyM]

Originally Posted by Chicks

Poor Whell. He's been supporting crooks and liars for years without actually knowing they were crooks and liars, something the rest of us knew all along. Sad!

[finnbow]

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Uh, no. In summary, despite your lengthy diatribe, three facts remain true.

1. The Twitter Files story is a big, fat nothingburger.

2. The WashPost coverage of the MAGA dweeb on the Mall is not analogous to Fox News' coverage of Dominion Voting Systems.

3. Russiagate was not a hoax.

4. If you don't agree with me, I'm going to take my ball and go home.

I'm not sure how you call the US government, via the FBI, colluding with big tech to quash news stories a nothing-burger, but whatever...

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

That's quite a creative take on the situation. Bravo.

[RickeyM]

Originally Posted by whell

4. If you don't agree with me, I'm going to take my ball and go home.

I'm not sure how you call the US government, via the FBI, colluding with big tech to quash news stories a nothing-burger, but whatever...

[whell]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

This is from a NYT editorial, not a random opinion piece. I remembered reading it when it was first published.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/19/opinion/trump-russia-2016-report.html

Great. Yet another opinion that is accepted as mostly fact.

Yes, Manafort stated that he gave Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian business associate he had known for years, polling data. The ALLEGATION is that Kilimnik was a Russian asset. The ALLEGATION is that Kilimnik turned the info over to his contacts in Russian intel.

If any of the above is true about Kilimnik, and assuming for a moment that he did turn the polling data he received from Manafort over to Russian Intel, then what possible value would this info have been to the Russians, within the context of "election interference"?

The SPECULATION is that the Russians used this info to target on-line advertising, particularly on Facebook.

But there's a pretty big problem with all of this speculation.

1) If that's how the Russian Intel folks want to spend their rubles, that's fine and dandy. However, from a purely "advertisement purchase" perspective, it was a pretty lousy buying decision. Why? Consider this:

If you’re looking to run ad campaigns on Facebook, you’ll need to know exactly who to target campaigns to, and men aged between 25 and 34 make up 18.4% of Facebook’s ad audience. Women in the same age group account for 12.6%.

The demographics with the lowest ad reach are men and women aged 13-17 and seniors aged 65+.

That means that Russians would have bought ads on Facebook, and those ads would likely not reach something close to 60% of likely voters.

2) The Facebook target demographic - let's just call it the under-40 demographic - ended up voting for Clinton, and by a pretty significant margin.

So, SPECULATING that this is what the Russians were up to, it was a lousy decision that certainly didn't have the "intended" results.

Bottom line, lots of editorializing based on limited facts.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by whell

Great. Yet another opinion that is accepted as mostly fact.

Bottom line, lots of editorializing based on limited facts.

Actually not, the opinion is referencing a Senate committee report. Are you claiming that these Republican senators are dealing with limited facts?

Most people do not continue to kick a hat after finding out there is a rock underneath it. Here is more for you to kick at,

A new report by the U.S. intelligence community on Tuesday says Russia sought to help former President Donald Trump in last year's presidential election. But the document also emphasized there was no indication Russia or any other country attempted to alter actual votes.

Russian President Vladimir Putin authorized "influence operations aimed at denigrating President Biden's candidacy and the Democratic Party, supporting Trump, undermining public confidence in the electoral process and exacerbating socio-political divisions in the U.S," says the report by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

The unclassified document is the most comprehensive look the intelligence community has released regarding foreign efforts to meddle in the 2020 election.

But the central message is the same one the intelligence community has been delivering since last August: Russia wanted Trump to win, though its effort was not on the same scale as in the 2016 election.

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/16/97795...-2020-election