Conspiracy Thread: Russians Preparing Sealed Indictment for Buzz Aldrin

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Conspiracy Thread: Russians Preparing Sealed Indictment for Buzz Aldrin

«‹›2 »

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006; Can't post for 14 hours!

RaySmuckles posted:

building 7 is the best conspiracy.

I've posted photos classmates took inside building 7 just before its collapse on these forums in 9/11 threads.

# ¿ Mar 29, 2019 01:52

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 10, 2024 00:03

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006; Can't post for 14 hours!

Party Plane Jones posted:

8https://twitter.com/elainaplott/status/1111351703805276162

# ¿ Mar 29, 2019 03:58

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006; Can't post for 14 hours!

Stereotype posted:

In case you didn’t already dislike Tulsi Gabbard:

https://twitter.com/tulsigabbard/status/1111386620698083329?s=21

She is going to lose the primary really badly and is also going to lose her house seat because everyone in hawaii thinks she is embarrassing.

# ¿ Mar 29, 2019 04:01

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006; Can't post for 14 hours!

friendbot2000 posted:

https://twitter.com/MoveOn/status/1111406439724011520

Here is Schiffs response to the bullshit chud letter and Nunes looks like he got slapped in the face as it dawns on him how this is not a good look lol

# ¿ Mar 29, 2019 16:35

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006; Can't post for 14 hours!

Barr Says Mueller Report Will Be Made Public by mid-April https://nyti.ms/2TJDV8K

Looks like mid April for the report

# ¿ Mar 29, 2019 20:45

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006; Can't post for 14 hours!

Diana Rhem was taking about the report and Barr this week.

https://www.stitcher.com/s?eid=59655724&refid=asa

# ¿ Mar 30, 2019 00:22

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006; Can't post for 14 hours!

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou..._k7vQ3y0jbLcNWW

quote:

There has been much crowing from Trumpsters on the right and Russiagate skeptics on the left about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report. That is, the three-and-a-half-page letter Attorney General Bill Barr sent to Congress summarizing Mueller’s work. (The report itself remains secret and is reportedly over 300 pages.) Pointing to Barr’s citation of a single, partial sentence from the report (“[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities”), Trump and his partisans, as well as the small number of lefty Russiagate deniers, have declared that because Mueller found no direct collaboration, the Trump-Russia scandal is kaput. Some have even declared it was a hoax—and a gargantuan media con job—from the start.

These critics are wrong. And here’s an easy way to tell whether they are engaging in honest discourse.

Two fundamental facts were established long before Mueller completed his investigation. First, the Russians attacked an American election in order to sow chaos, hurt Hillary Clinton, and help Donald Trump. Second, Trump and his top advisers during the campaign repeatedly denied this attack was underway, echoing and amplifying Moscow disinformation (the false claim that Russia was not attacking). Whether or not the Trumpers were directly in cahoots with the Russian government, they ran interference for Vladimir Putin’s assault on the United States, and they even did so after the intelligence community had briefed Trump on Russia’s culpability.

So to determine if the Barr triumphalists are acting in good faith, you need only ask them a simple question: do you accept these basic facts and acknowledge the profound seriousness of each one?

The Russian attack on the 2016 election was an attempt to subvert the foundation of American society: the democratic process. How can Americans have faith in their government, if elections are undermined by secret schemers, including a foreign government? It is certainly arguable that the Russian intervention—particularly the stealing and drip-drip-drip dumping of the John Podesta emails across the final four weeks of the election—was one of several decisive factors in a contest that had a narrow and tight finish. Consequently, there is a strong case that Moscow helped shift the course of US history by contributing to the election of Trump. (And recognizing this is not the same as defending Hillary Clinton or concocting an excuse for the Democrats’ embarrassing loss to Trump.)

This is the original sin of the Trump presidency: he and his crew aided and abetted the Russian attack by lying about it and running interference for the Russians.
During the campaign and afterward, some Trump backers and some critics on the left, including columnist and media scold Glenn Greenwald, questioned whether the Russians indeed engaged in such skulduggery. (The Nation, where I once worked, published an article promoting a report that claimed the Russians did not hack the Democratic National Committee—and then had to backtrack when that report turned out to be bunk.)

For many of these scandal skeptics, it hasn’t seemed to matter that the charge against Moscow has been publicly confirmed by the Obama administration, the US intelligence community (which concluded that Putin’s operation intended to help Trump), both Republicans and Democrats on the congressional intelligence committees, and Robert Mueller, who indicted a mess of Russians for participating in this covert operation. True, there often is cause to question officialdom and government sources. Yet anyone citing the Mueller report, as it is narrowly capsulized by Barr, must also accept his key finding: Russia attacked the United States and intervened in the election. (They must also accept that, as the Barr letter disclosed, Mueller found evidence suggesting Trump obstructed justice but did not reach a final judgment on this question.)

Moscow’s intervention was an outrageous action, and concern about this should unite right and left and anyone in between. There is nothing more important in this whole affair than the attack itself. Those who are not profoundly distressed about the consequences and implications of that assault—including those who instead focus more on distractions, such as conspiracy theories about the Deep State or the role of the Steele dossier—should answer this question: Is it because you don’t truly care this happened, or is it because acknowledging this reality interferes with your ideological or partisan loyalties? Or is it both? It is hard to see how a possible misuse of wiretapping authority by the Obama administration (an unproven assertion hurled by Republicans) or possible overstatements from Democrats or liberal pundits about Trump-Russia connections (which leftist skeptics have cited) could be more important than an attack on the US political system that was a factor in the outcome of the election.

Back to the second fundamental fact. On Tuesday, Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway, responding to the Barr letter, proclaimed, “The idea that any of us, and me as a campaign manager, would cheat, steal, lie, cut corners, talk to Russians, was an insult from the beginning.” Her statement was a lie about lying.

The public record is undeniable: Trump campaign people communicated with Russians during the campaign numerous times. Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, and Jared Kushner met with a Russian emissary who they were informed would slip them dirt on Hillary Clinton as part of a secret Kremlin plot to help Trump’s campaign. Manafort, while serving as Trump’s campaign chairman, secretly met with a Ukrainian-Russian business associate named Konstantin Kilimnik who was a go-between with Oleg Deripaska, a Putin-friendly Russian oligarch. Manafort handed Kilimnik private campaign polling data and discussed a so-called peace-plan that presumably would involve lifting sanctions on Russia. (According to Mueller, the FBI has concluded that Kilimnik was associated with Russian intelligence.)

Not to mention that through much of the summer of 2016, Trump foreign policy aide George Papdopoulos, according to Mueller, was trying to set up an “off the record” meeting with Putin’s office. Carter Page, another foreign policy adviser, spoke with Russian officials in Moscow, where he made a speech assailing the West’s tough stance against Putin for his violent intervention in Ukraine.

All of this occurred while Russia was attacking the United States. (Manafort met with Kilimnik and Papadopoulos reached out to Putin’s office after it had been reported that Russia was the likely culprit in the hack-and-dump operation seeking to influence the US election.) And these contacts happened as Trump and his campaign—most notably, Trump Jr. and Manafort—were also publicly denying that any such attack was underway.

These denials had no basis in fact and ran counter to what cybersecurity experts were saying—but they precisely echoed what the Russians were saying: It ain’t us! The combination of public denials and private contacts could only have been read as encouragement by Moscow. Trump at one point even called on Russia to hack Clinton’s emails, and, according to a Mueller indictment, Russian government hackers attempted to do so that very evening.

This is the original sin of the Trump presidency: he and his crew aided and abetted the Russian attack by lying about it and running interference for the Russians. And contrary to what Conway asserted, the Trump crowd, after the election, lied about most of these interactions. Trump and Trump Jr. lied about the Trump Tower meeting, claiming it had been merely a discussion of Russian adoption policy. Manafort lied to Mueller’s investigators about his meeting with Kilimnik. (By the way, Roger Stone, a longtime Trump adviser, was indicted by Mueller for lying about his efforts during the campaign to contact WikiLeaks as it pumped out Democratic material swiped by the Russians.)

One of Trump’s biggest lies about Russia was exposed nearly a year after the election: While running for president, he had told voters that he had no business links with Russia, yet for much of the campaign his Trump Organization had been secretly negotiating a deal to develop a Trump tower in Moscow—which could have landed Trump hundreds of millions of dollars and which likely could not have proceeded if Trump had dared to speak negatively about Putin. Such a whopping conflict of interest is a huge scandal, with or without any direct coordination between Trump and Russia’s covert operators. And for that Moscow venture, Michael Cohen, Trump’s fixer, had communicated with Putin’s office and asked for assistance. Cohen later admitted to lying to Congress about this.

It always seemed quite possible—probable—that the Russians did not need to conspire directly with Trump or his campaign to go after Democratic targets or to mount a disinformation campaign.
There were contacts with Russia and lies about those contacts—and false denials that provided cover for the Russian attack. How can all this be regarded as not a scandal? Especially before the full contents of the Mueller report, which might contain new information about these parts of the story, is made public, if that ever happens.

And there’s another matter not covered by Barr’s skinny summary: the counterintelligence inquiry that was part of Mueller’s probe. This was the investigation of whether Russia had manipulated or influenced Trump or anyone within his campaign or circle. The FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation began under FBI chief James Comey in the summer of 2016 as a counterintelligence project, not a criminal investigation. But as Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said this week, “It is not clear whether, or to what extent, the Mueller report, which is focused on prosecutorial decisions, will even discuss counterintelligence findings.” (Counterintelligence investigations are super-secret, often relying on classified intelligence gathering, and usually do not end with prosecutions or public pronouncements.)

It always seemed quite possible—probable—that the Russians did not need to conspire directly with Trump or his campaign to go after Democratic targets or to mount a disinformation campaign boosting Trump and discrediting Clinton. Yet Trump, by claiming this foreign adversary was not attacking the United States, made it easier for Putin to pull this off. Whether the Trump gang helped the Russian operation deliberately or inadvertently, it committed a foul act that undermined national security and a national election. Anyone who doesn’t accept this—Trump and his lieutenants assisting the attack, whether or not a crime was committed—as significant wrongdoing deserving investigation and opprobrium ought not to be considered a serious voice in any discussion of the Trump-Russia scandal.

Yet now there are many rushing to the their keyboards and strutting before television cameras to declare the scandal was nothing more than trickery concocted by sore-loser Democrats and unscrupulous journalists. Far from cooking up anything, many reporters worked hard to slice through the lies knitted by Trump and his allies and revealed many of the essential facts noted above. The Russiagate detractors and the Trump champions are deliberately and deceptively narrowing the question to focus only on direct conspiracy between the Trump camp and the Kremlin, pertaining specifically to the attack. They are embracing Trump’s own self-serving standard. They are studiously ignoring what has already been established: Moscow waged information warfare against the United States, Trump’s campaign enthusiastically engaged with Russians while the attack was transpiring (conveying to Moscow that it did not mind the Kremlin’s intervention), and Trumpists lied about these interactions and misled the public about the Russian operation. All these gleeful Russiagate deniers now exploiting the minimalist Barr letter to diminish or suppress the Trump-Russia scandal are conducting an exercise of diversion that is of tremendous benefit to two men—Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin—and a disservice to the American public.
David Corn

# ¿ Mar 31, 2019 03:05

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006; Can't post for 14 hours!

DaveWoo posted:

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1112369508453367808

What if, indeed.

# ¿ Mar 31, 2019 16:31

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006; Can't post for 14 hours!

The Glumslinger posted:

https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1113647759100456965

https://twitter.com/PhilipRucker/status/1113647316186083329

Yup, Barr came in and did his job

Guess this is the start of the leaks from people angry its being kept locked up. I wonder how until we get summaries of the summaries

Well looks like Barr is stupid too and went with option lol.

The cfr is pretty clear on the release of report.

# ¿ Apr 4, 2019 04:52

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006; Can't post for 14 hours!

Shimrra Jamaane posted:

Oh

https://twitter.com/KenDilanianNBC/status/1113806696097505281

# ¿ Apr 4, 2019 20:23

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006; Can't post for 14 hours!

Awfully quiet in this thread today. How does that Mel Brooks joke go? We Romans, we gotta lotta gods, only thing we don't have a god for is premature ejaculation.

But I hear ones coming too soon.

# ¿ Apr 18, 2019 16:40

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006; Can't post for 14 hours!

I expect something along the lines following question to be asked when they bring Mueller in to testify:

If this were any other individual than the President would you have recommended prosecution for obstruction of justice?

Whatever the response it's going to be the news and probably will determine the story.

# ¿ Apr 18, 2019 20:10

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006; Can't post for 14 hours!

That would determine too wouldn't it.

# ¿ Apr 18, 2019 20:31

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006; Can't post for 14 hours!

Helsing posted:

Who gives a poo poo about any of this?

Seems like a lot of people. How long they'll give a poo poo for is the more important question.

# ¿ Apr 18, 2019 20:42

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006; Can't post for 14 hours!

Willie Tomg posted:

Has pillowpants posted at all since the report has been published? Or glowing fish? It's very important for my purposes which is pointing to my two year old posts predicting this outcome with 100% accuracy and saying "i told you so"

Glowingfish was probated, haven't seen him since?

# ¿ Apr 21, 2019 23:28

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006; Can't post for 14 hours!

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/201...-trump-now.html

Cross posting Otteration. Andrew Sullivan on the Mueller report.

# ¿ Apr 22, 2019 01:00

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006; Can't post for 14 hours!

Try this one, weird it worked yesterday

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...t25_laM&ampcf=1

# ¿ Apr 22, 2019 14:32

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006; Can't post for 14 hours!

I don't buy that we can't do both. Ain't poo poo going to happen in Congress until the next election anyway.

Do you think it's a bad thing that Congress assert it's self over the executive?

Know what that didn't go far enough. Scratch that question.

Do you think it's worth saving period? The current (admittedly anachronistic and hosed) representative constitutional democracy we have?

I think this is a seperate question from what needs to be done about neoliberalism (I suspect you don't.)

# ¿ Apr 22, 2019 18:38

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006; Can't post for 14 hours!

Helsing posted:

Thinking things can remain the way they have is the most utopian belief of all.

It's this Helsing:

"1. One can drop the story for another story. Religious folk becoming atheists are an example . Conversions are another example. Capitalists becoming Marxist another.

2. One can ignore the contradiction. This sends one down the road of the sorts of cult dynamics Prester talks about.

3. One can attempt to reconcile the narrative with the contradiction. "

Of course things cannot remain as they are that is 2). That's the end of history crowd. And I agree it's non-viable.

I'm asking about the nature of your response. Is it 1) or 3) ? This is a practical repercussion of me being a religious person. The two differing approaches each have different risks.

Another way I could ask this is, do you think it's dead? If it's dead 3) will fail and 1) will happen anyway. To me that means it's always worth attempting 3).

# ¿ Apr 22, 2019 20:48

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006; Can't post for 14 hours!

Helsing posted:

Before I could hope to answer this you would have to explain what the difference is between changing a story instead of reconciling it. As presented this is too vague for me to answer. Though I would say that even if 1 "will happen anyway", exactly what will happen and how is not set in stone which means just because option 1 might be inevitable is in no way an excuse to shrug and say "oh well, nothing to be done, might as well try 3".

Let's see if I can ask this in a more clear way:

The American Civic religion is clearly failing and Donald Trump is a symptom of that failure. Does it have the capacity to recover? Can it be reconciled with the realities (and your criticisms of Obama are a good example ofb these realities ) and not kill children and transfer wealth to the richest of us?

We can either attempt to throw it out entirely or we can attempt to alter it and do better.

Helsing posted:

Also, I find it hard to reconcile your Christian beliefs with your apparent faith in American state power and the emissaries of that power. To be blunt, the religion I see in your posts is the American civic religion that believes the American government is fundamentally benign and noble. To be a little blunt and rude about my feelings, it comes off like to you it didn't matter that Obama signed off on the killing of children or completely abandoned his promise to help underwater homeowners because he talked pretty words and name dropped your favorite theologians.

Life is more complicated than this Helsing. I go to work everyday and try to prevent the loss of life. I'm being very literal and concrete when I say that. I'm pretty drat good at it. But as I do it, over time I grow very aware of the purposes and ends of all the cargos I briefly interact with. I also grow increasingly aware of all the international systems the work I do supports and the externalities of those systems.

When we act in the world regardless of the ends or means we get blood on our hands. All we can do, is the best we can do, we are never innocent. Yes I participate in the American Civic religion. But we only get to change what we continue to participate in!

The dilemma is also why I'm obessed with those particular theologians. The thing that I find confusing, and I wouldn't limit this to you, is that it seems widespread here to not have experienced this.

# ¿ Apr 23, 2019 20:27

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006; Can't post for 14 hours!

Ytlaya posted:

This is overly vague because you're not clear regarding what the "American Civic religion" consists of. In reality there are many aspects of US society and culture that are fundamentally incompatible with a decent and fair society. So you need to be clear about what you're trying to preserve here, and why it's somehow necessary to support these ideas in order to accomplish change.

These symbols are vague and that is the space where the fight for defining them is. Let's get specfic, a good example is freedom: There is freedom in the libertarian sense. Freedom in the "liberal" but not libertarian sense. Freedom in the Christian sense. Freedom to vs freedom from. The symbol has all these possible meanings. Some of these meaning are "fundamentally incompatible with a decent and fair society" some are not. The question is which do we try to make real with the actions of our lives.

Or to go: well gently caress this freedom thing I'm not going to participate in that symbol. Then the problem there is we just end up playing the same game with a different set of symbols.
It's not about preserving, it's about interpretation and then the living of the interpretation. Doing those things then changes other people!

Ytlaya posted:

To be frank, I get the general impression that you're trying to "intellectualize" the vague feeling of "I feel like other people don't understand the 'complexities' of society and thus they are too ignorant to come up with good solutions, while I and/or the people I personally and professionally respect do understand them." This sort of perspective generally translates to an anti-democratic mindset that believes that only those with sufficient credentials in society should have the right to propose significant change to society (with any significant change proposed by the "underclass" being viewed as fundamentally invalid, since they couldn't possibly understand the 'complexities' involved).

I've written about in the climate thread but in my field there are multiple models of the same thing for different audiences. It's not this class understands and this one doesn't. It's this model is in this language and only people who speak that language understand that model. It must be translated. And the communication must flow in both directions, it has to be a conversation. Without the conversation you get one side doing what your saying here and the other side with real complaints being ignored and rightly becoming increasingly angry.

The absence of that conversation is one of the things that allows "conspiracy theories" and harmful cult like myths to propogate.

# ¿ Apr 26, 2019 04:22

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006; Can't post for 14 hours!

is pepsi ok posted:

first they weaponized crickets and now whales? what if they deploy a squad of highly trained bears to knock out my air conditioning in the middle of summer

The US used to lower divers (to depths the Russians thought were impossible for divers) to attach tracking devices to all the Russian subs leaving then North, Norwegian, Baltic (etc) seas which then had to be removed from said subs when they came back. I have relatives who were in involved. I've had coworkers whose parents were on the Russian subs. I guess what I'm saying is there is a great deal of movement of nuclear weapons in those areas.

# ¿ Apr 29, 2019 19:17

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006; Can't post for 14 hours!

Willie Tomg posted:

Brandor, I really don't want to put your back up here, but: What if this outcome was entirely predictable many years ago not through hermeneutic exegesis of hitherto common nouns, but actually looking at material relations and making empirical observations upon them?

What if--and I truly don't mean to sound insane here--what if some people on a forum were trying to tell you about this process *for literal years, now?*

It's a mistake to not recognize that I am also talking about something that is material. Let's use the freedom example. In the fourties and fifties you have Birchers and Libertarians giving talks in lovely hotel convention spaces. Then on the radio. They intersect with and write for the segregationists (and religious right)and later the southern strategy republicans. Eventually people like Roger Ailes come out of this and shape television networks. Others like the Kochs also start those think tanks, university programs, and social programs. On the other side freedom is very much materially present in the civil rights movement (are we not yet free?) and similiar real physical things happen. I'm real. You're real. We are having a conversation about how we live our lives. That conversation isn't just a
hermeneutic exegesis of hitherto common nouns. It's about material relations. It's an observable phenomena. But it hasn't been easily measurable. That creates a particular type of error. An example is the behaviorists not talking about love because it wasn't easily measurable. Ignoring the observable but hard to measure can be grave error with serious consequences.

But right now it's becoming measurable and even experimentable on.

Willie Tomg posted:

Your point about language is good! it's also kinda quaint in the year 2019 though; Chomsky is whom Chomsky is mostly on the basis of originally talking about those linguistic models, and the rest is... well... historical materialism. Because when you start talking about abstracts in a serious way other than spinning your wheels, you start grinding into observable realities which can be observed, measured, and yes: predicted to within a confidence interval.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KG1Ima2FiMM
https://twitter.com/MollyWolly8/status/1028687465891147776

At the end of the day where am I sitting? Usually (and currently) down on the waterfront with labor on the piers and on the ships. I have made my choice and I would be somewhere else if I believed something else.

Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 20:09 on Apr 29, 2019

# ¿ Apr 29, 2019 19:37

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006; Can't post for 14 hours!

Lightning Knight posted:

Didn’t the Navy try and weaponize dolphins?

Yes.

# ¿ Apr 29, 2019 20:10

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006; Can't post for 14 hours!

Mueller Objected to Barr’s Description of Russia Investigation’s Findings https://nyti.ms/2DEvWEQ

# ¿ May 1, 2019 00:27

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006; Can't post for 14 hours!

Helsing things like this:

RandomBlue posted:

https://twitter.com/nprpolitics/status/1123584112646688769

For those of you who say this isn't an issue voters care about, you're wrong. This is definitely an issue Democrat voters care about. Not taking action is going to depress dem turnout.

Are kind of problematic for your opinion.

# ¿ May 1, 2019 19:03

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006; Can't post for 14 hours!

Helsing posted:

It would be easier for me to respond if you explained why you think that.

70% of Dems think impeachment should proceed. You'd rather move on to building something new. Which group of people are the constituency for that?

# ¿ May 1, 2019 19:38

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006; Can't post for 14 hours!

BrandorKP posted:

It's still a possibility that Barr is full of poo poo and misrepresenting the facts as presented in the report. When I write reports for lawyers the goto rule is: stick to the factual, avoid any analysis let the lawyers do the concluding. My reports get written as dry factual accounts, this allows them (the party that hired us) to snip parts out to reference and omit others to build a case to protect the party they represent. If Barr is full of poo poo the risk for him is that any one else sees the report, and that's a big risk for something like this. I'm inclined to think it's not been excessively spun because other parties are eventually going to see the report but if it has, lol.

Looks like Barr went full LOL from the hearings.

# ¿ May 1, 2019 20:03

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006; Can't post for 14 hours!

Helsing posted:

Look Brandor, the cute widdle conspiracy theory that you fed and sheltered is a big boy now. Gosh they grow up so fast.

Now everybody is doing it ( the social media manipulation ) to everybody, Helsing. Like it's a thing that now gets discussed on this American Life (they did a segment on D groups doing it to Moore supporters). It should now just be assumed it's occurring all the time . I think I even remember reading about specfic congressmen (all male R's) having bots.

This means several things. The intial newness and unprepared-ness is past. The one sided-ness (the right and authoritarians) when aimed at the electorate is past. The effectiveness is probably going to fall off overtime. I'd bet that's being modelled right now. It's use by our military will also probably see a similar effectiveness fall off.

That's all probably good.

# ¿ May 3, 2019 18:32

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006; Can't post for 14 hours!

One doesn't need to ascribe if it's been explictly stated and professed by the person in response to a direct question. Which Christian Realism has been by Obama.

Edit: and why not start a thread on that other topic? It's gotten tangentially touched on in others threads, there's some interest.

Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 05:55 on May 11, 2019

# ¿ May 11, 2019 05:49

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006; Can't post for 14 hours!

Russia Is Targeting Europe�s Elections. So Are Far-Right Copycats. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/12/world/europe/russian-propaganda-influence-campaign-european-elections-far-right.html

# ¿ May 12, 2019 22:55

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006; Can't post for 14 hours!

Some research on the targeted ads social media manipulation stuff is starting to come out publicly. Seem like it can swing things +/- 2-4 %. That is either suppressing that amount or encouraging it, and both could be done in a given election. I heard on the radio today that apparently this is also being confirmed by campaigns though they are spending a lot more to do it and will probably not be making public what they find.

# ¿ May 30, 2019 04:21

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006; Can't post for 14 hours!

IAAPE

# ¿ Jun 2, 2019 05:30

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006; Can't post for 14 hours!

Robert Mueller to Testify Before House Committees https://nyti.ms/2ZLk5xk

# ¿ Jun 26, 2019 02:23

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006; Can't post for 14 hours!

BigBallChunkyTime posted:

Hey guys, I know this may be hard to believe, but Trumpers may be extremely loving dumb.

https://twitter.com/JasonAbbruzzese/status/1148564783949668353?s=19

# ¿ Jul 9, 2019 14:51

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006; Can't post for 14 hours!

eke out posted:

holy poo poo this story is flying under the radar because of the trump bullshit but

https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/1150849425918631937

this is insane, photos of wikileaks employees removing boxes of harddrives from the embassy on 10/16/16, assange allowed to keep secret lists of people the security guards couldn't check, etc

seems to greatly back up that guardian piece about Assange meeting Manafort in the embassy, insofar as it makes clear he had tons of control in pre-election 2016 and could remove names from the visitor logs

# ¿ Jul 16, 2019 02:34

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006; Can't post for 14 hours!

“It wasn’t a single attempt,” he said. “They’re doing it as we sit here”

# ¿ Jul 24, 2019 20:33

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006; Can't post for 14 hours!

Seperate from that discussion, what's the narrative devolping in the news. I haven't really been able to read or listen today, other than the one article this morning that came from. Cause what happens now will probably define the way the story is perceived.

# ¿ Jul 24, 2019 22:47

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006; Can't post for 14 hours!

Russian Hack of Elections System Was Far-Reaching, Report Finds https://nyti.ms/2y91NdI

# ¿ Jul 26, 2019 00:47

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 10, 2024 00:03

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006; Can't post for 14 hours!

Helsing posted:

You and I have both been posting in various iterations of the Russia-gate thread for going on two years and I've genuinely tried to follow your thinking here and yet for the life of me I really cannot pin down exactly what you actually belief or what exactly you think the significance of all these random tweets and news headlines is supposed to be.
...
I feel as though you at times are (maybe not purposefully) being strategically vague about what you do or do not believe and that makes it a lot harder to actually have a meaningful dialogue.

Today I walked past a news stand and saw 3 out of 4 papers with that article as the headliner above the fold.

There are couple of things going on. About 30% is that I am watching a couple things: the story in the main stream papers (Eg. when I directly post times articles), the story that filters into D&D (and I've fallen off cross posting this, both moderately in interest and massively in available time), and the stories being told in response from various groups. I'm actively trying not have a opinion there. I'm trying to watch.

About thirty percent is the gap between a portion of the left and things that are very obviously occurring. I am perturbed in a similiar way to you looking in the opposite direction. I think I get mostly the roots of it these days. Seperately there is some anger at active manipulation towards an end by a pretty small list of posters but that's mostly died down, and I think it's obvious who I thought was doing that. And I wonder how many of them were the same person.

About thirty percent is me actually having an opinion, usually I think this pretty obvious when I do that.

The remainder is along the lines of holy poo poo Uglycat was pretty drat close on Seth Rich.

Helsing posted:

I think the advantage of the voting machines is that they create more of an opportunity for profit. A traditional paper ballot is too inexpensive to properly grit off of.

Paper is definately best but add a paper voter pamphlet and voting by mail. Washington State's model is by far the best in the country by a large margin. It's so easy. One can be informed about the candidates, some very entertaining (GoodSpaceGuy) and vote wearing only underwear, while drinking. I feel like the American people should be able to be sold on that.

# ¿ Jul 27, 2019 05:41

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Conspiracy Thread: Russians Preparing Sealed Indictment for Buzz Aldrin

«‹›2 »