Reports for the Senate Intelligence Committee on the Internet Research Agency's influence operations
paulsurovell said:
DaveSchmidt said:Not necessary to parse, his meaning is clear. Not likely in top 100 factors in the election. Which is actually kind of obvious.
paulsurovell said:I’m not sure that this applies to Nate Silver, but when I think something is worth sharing for consideration but is still rather debatable, “I’m not sure that” is how I often put it.
You've got to go after Nate Silver if you want to criticize my post. Because it's his view that I cited that the work of the Russian trolls were not likely in the top 100 factors in the election.
Silver's remark is quite sloppy and hyperbolic. He picks the number 100 out of his butt, and people think he's saying something with a scientific basis.
Some people anyway.
When the margin of victory in an election equates to the value of a rounding error, any one of a number of seemingly minor effects could have been the determining factor. Impossible to prove of course , and by the same token, impossible to disprove.
As for Sirota's comment - let's remember that a large percentage of Bernie supporters think that the DNC stole the nomination from Bernie. That's already plenty of proof for me that they're "stupid rubes".
drummerboy said:When the margin of victory in an election equates to the value of a rounding error, any one of a number of seemingly minor effects could have been the determining factor.
Wow, what a brilliant insight. Nate Silver clearly doesn't know this.
drummerboy said:
As for Sirota's comment - let's remember that a large percentage of Bernie supporters think that the DNC stole the nomination from Bernie. That's already plenty of proof for me that they're "stupid rubes".
Bernie got more than 40% of the total primary vote. People like Moulitsas and @nohero are trying to drive them out of the party. I mean really, why would anyone want to associate with people who have been fanatically lying about them and smearing them for more than two years?
Our Useful Idiot has no problem with Russians going out of their way to take out BLM FB ads that were designed to pit Americans against one another.
No problem at all.
paulsurovell said:
Bernie got more than 40% of the total primary vote. People like Moulitsas and @nohero are trying to drive them out of the party. I mean really, why would anyone want to associate with people who have been fanatically lying about them and smearing them for more than two years?
I assume you have examples that you can respond with, when you say I've been lying about the people who voted for Bernie in the primary.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:I assume you have examples that you can respond with, when you say I've been lying about the people who voted for Bernie in the primary.
Bernie got more than 40% of the total primary vote. People like Moulitsas and @nohero are trying to drive them out of the party. I mean really, why would anyone want to associate with people who have been fanatically lying about them and smearing them for more than two years?
It appears from your carefully parsed post that you are stipulating to smearing Bernie voters for more than two years. You're just asking for poof that you've "lied."
Here's a lie that you told about this Bernie voter:
sbenois said:
Our Useful Idiot has no problem with Russians going out of their way to take out BLM FB ads that were designed to pit Americans against one another.
No problem at all.
Always the first to believe a hoax, always the loudest mouth attacking dissent.
You believed this scary story in 2003 and you attacked those who questioned it. Now it's scary stories about "Russia."
Such an easy mark.
paulsurovell said:
sbenois said:Always the first to believe a hoax, always the loudest mouth attacking dissent.
Our Useful Idiot has no problem with Russians going out of their way to take out BLM FB ads that were designed to pit Americans against one another.
No problem at all.
You believed this scary story in 2003 and you attacked those who questioned it. Now it's scary stories about "Russia."
Such an easy mark.
The great news is that you acknowledge that you are a Useful Idiot.
sbenois said:
paulsurovell said:The great news is that you acknowledge that I am an Idiot.
sbenois said:Always the first to believe a hoax, always the loudest mouth attacking dissent.
Our Useful Idiot has no problem with Russians going out of their way to take out BLM FB ads that were designed to pit Americans against one another.
No problem at all.
You believed this scary story in 2003 and you attacked those who questioned it. Now it's scary stories about "Russia."
Such an easy mark.
Fixed it for you.
Sorry Paul but the original stands. You are, indeed, a very Useful Idiot. And you admitted it.
Vladi is not going to be happy. Please make sure you call him at 4am and explain how you can still be of any value to him after such a stunning admission.
.
sbenois said:
Sorry Paul but the original stands.
No it doesn't, can't you read? It's been fixed.
sbenois said:
Stop with your explanations.. I'm getting pissed.
Fixed it for you again.
Calm down.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:It appears from your carefully parsed post that you are stipulating to smearing Bernie voters for more than two years. You're just asking for poof that you've "lied."
paulsurovell said:I assume you have examples that you can respond with, when you say I've been lying about the people who voted for Bernie in the primary.
Bernie got more than 40% of the total primary vote. People like Moulitsas and @nohero are trying to drive them out of the party. I mean really, why would anyone want to associate with people who have been fanatically lying about them and smearing them for more than two years?
Here's a lie that you told about this Bernie voter:
Alas, not carefully parsed, but hastily typed. I typed "lying about" instead of "lying about and smearing" when I responded to your personal attack. I apologize if that caused you to construct your argument based on the premise that I was "stipulating to smearing Bernie voters for more than two years".
With regard to your phony umbrage, I already wrote a long response to you about that two months ago. I'm not going to repeat it all, just to note that I made clear: "Leaving aside the probably hyperbole that you might have mentioned some other issue along the way, the emails were your major focus." I'll add here that you were very enthusiastic about the emails.
And if by "Bernie voter" you slipped and admitted to being a "Bernie voter who refused to vote for Hillary", that would not be a surprise.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:Alas, not carefully parsed, but hastily typed. I typed "lying about" instead of "lying about and smearing" when I responded to your personal attack. I apologize if that caused you to construct your argument based on the premise that I was "stipulating to smearing Bernie voters for more than two years".
nohero said:It appears from your carefully parsed post that you are stipulating to smearing Bernie voters for more than two years. You're just asking for poof that you've "lied."
paulsurovell said:I assume you have examples that you can respond with, when you say I've been lying about the people who voted for Bernie in the primary.
Bernie got more than 40% of the total primary vote. People like Moulitsas and @nohero are trying to drive them out of the party. I mean really, why would anyone want to associate with people who have been fanatically lying about them and smearing them for more than two years?
Here's a lie that you told about this Bernie voter:
With regard to your phony umbrage, I already wrote a long response to you about that two months ago. I'm not going to repeat it all, just to note that I made clear: "Leaving aside the probably hyperbole that you might have mentioned some other issue along the way, the emails were your major focus." I'll add here that you were very enthusiastic about the emails.
Defending your lie with more lies.
nohero said:
And if by "Bernie voter" you slipped and admitted to being a "Bernie voter who refused to vote for Hillary", that would not be a surprise.
Given my repeated expressions of support for Hillary after the primary this statement borders on libelous.
Your two-year-plus obsession with Bernie supporters and criticism of Hillary is toxic for the Democratic Party and exactly what the Republicans and Trump want you to do.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:Defending your lie with more lies.
paulsurovell said:Alas, not carefully parsed, but hastily typed. I typed "lying about" instead of "lying about and smearing" when I responded to your personal attack. I apologize if that caused you to construct your argument based on the premise that I was "stipulating to smearing Bernie voters for more than two years".
nohero said:It appears from your carefully parsed post that you are stipulating to smearing Bernie voters for more than two years. You're just asking for poof that you've "lied."
paulsurovell said:I assume you have examples that you can respond with, when you say I've been lying about the people who voted for Bernie in the primary.
Bernie got more than 40% of the total primary vote. People like Moulitsas and @nohero are trying to drive them out of the party. I mean really, why would anyone want to associate with people who have been fanatically lying about them and smearing them for more than two years?
Here's a lie that you told about this Bernie voter:
With regard to your phony umbrage, I already wrote a long response to you about that two months ago. I'm not going to repeat it all, just to note that I made clear: "Leaving aside the probably hyperbole that you might have mentioned some other issue along the way, the emails were your major focus." I'll add here that you were very enthusiastic about the emails.
While you continue with the personal attacks, I'll stick with my simple explanations and link to the further (truthful) reply the last time you carried on like this.
nohero said:
While you continue with the personal attacks, I'll stick with my simple explanations and link to the further (truthful) reply the last time you carried on like this.
Let's see how long it takes for you to resume smearing me as being pro-Trump or pro-Putin.
Edited to Add: Those are personal attacks, by the way.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:Given my repeated expressions of support for Hillary after the primary this statement borders on libelous.
And if by "Bernie voter" you slipped and admitted to being a "Bernie voter who refused to vote for Hillary", that would not be a surprise.
Your two-year-plus obsession with Bernie supporters and criticism of Hillary is toxic for the Democratic Party and exactly what the Republicans and Trump want you to do.
I don't recall it as "repeated", and with other posts you had a funny way of showing support. I'll take "borders on libelous" as really meaning "not libelous at all but I want to use that word". I don't have a "two-year-plus obsession". First, you dragged me into the conversation with your gratuitous personal attack, when responding to Mr. Drummerboy. Second, at best I respond when people who can't let go of their obsessions continue to talk about Hillary and "neoliberals" and everything else that they focus on instead of winning in 2020.
I fail to see how being disappointed by so-called "liberals" who refused to support the Democratic nominee in 2016, is "toxic for the Democratic Party and exactly what the Republicans and Trump want". I think the GOP and Trump want the intra-party fighting and negative campaigning that the Bernie folks have already started.
And since this thread isn't about Bernie or Hillary, you've made a good try at a digression but I think it's time to wrap it up.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:Let's see how long it takes for you to resume smearing me as being pro-Trump or pro-Putin.
While you continue with the personal attacks, I'll stick with my simple explanations and link to the further (truthful) reply the last time you carried on like this.
Ah, trick question. I can't "resume" something I never did. Nice try, though.
nohero said:
I think the GOP and Trump want the intra-party fighting and negative campaigning that the Bernie folks have already started.
Who started this?
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:I don't recall it as "repeated", and with other posts you had a funny way of showing support. I'll take "borders on libelous" as really meaning "not libelous at all but I want to use that word". I don't have a "two-year-plus obsession". First, you dragged me into the conversation with your gratuitous personal attack, when responding to Mr. Drummerboy. Second, at best I respond when people who can't let go of their obsessions continue to talk about Hillary and "neoliberals" and everything else that they focus on instead of winning in 2020.
nohero said:Given my repeated expressions of support for Hillary after the primary this statement borders on libelous.
And if by "Bernie voter" you slipped and admitted to being a "Bernie voter who refused to vote for Hillary", that would not be a surprise.
Your two-year-plus obsession with Bernie supporters and criticism of Hillary is toxic for the Democratic Party and exactly what the Republicans and Trump want you to do.
I fail to see how being disappointed by so-called "liberals" who refused to support the Democratic nominee in 2016, is "toxic for the Democratic Party and exactly what the Republicans and Trump want". I think the GOP and Trump want the intra-party fighting and negative campaigning that the Bernie folks have already started.
And since this thread isn't about Bernie or Hillary, you've made a good try at a digression but I think it's time to wrap it up.
Yup.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:Who started this?
I think the GOP and Trump want the intra-party fighting and negative campaigning that the Bernie folks have already started.
https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/arsonist-s-new-book-i-can-put-out-the-fire?page=next&limit=0#discussion-replies-3431238
Ah, yes, my comment on the poster boy for intra-party fighting. They had barely swept up the confetti from the convention floor when Bernie started his vanity "movement", "Our Revolution". He writes all about it at the start of his book, after his reprint of his convention speech (guess he didn't want to write anything else to buttress his claim of supporting the nominee).
In 2016, Job One for any Democrat in August, September, October, and the start of November was to elect the Democratic candidates, from the Presidential nominee on down. Bernie had other priorities. That's an observation of the facts.
Here's an interesting report on the group behind the latest Russia social media scam:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/us/alabama-senate-roy-jones-russia.html
paulsurovell said:
Here's an interesting report on the group behind the latest Russia social media scam:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/us/alabama-senate-roy-jones-russia.html
Nobody should pull cr*p like that, even as an "experiment".
But as you point out, they have the knowledge to assess the social media scams pulled by Russia in 2016.
Speaking of "social media scams" have any of you been following the Integrity Initiative in the UK, leaked by Anonymous? This is a government funded program, hiding behind a charity, for the big purpose of ramping up Cold War 2.0. The US is involved, although I'm not sure how and I'm still learning more about this. They spread lies and propaganda, mostly about Russia, but also about anti-war figures, most notably Jeremy Corbin. They operate through twitter and Facebook and pay off journalists to influence public opinion.
This is a big, and still developing story and not getting much coverage. The best information on it at present comes from briefing notes published by the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media.
I will probably be posting some more about this, maybe on the Browder thread, as he was listed as a British agent participant, a long suspected theory.
For Sale
Free Items
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
As expected, you've adopted the position that conflates the primaries with the general election.
That tweet from Sirota is dishonest. He know d*mn well what was meant in the tweet he's quoting.
I don't think Hillary was above criticism, and you know d*mn well that's not what I meant.
I hope everybody who protested against her at the convention, who participated in the nominating process and then declared they wouldn't vote for the nominee, and who talked and wrote more about her emails than about the consequences of a Trump win, are proud of what they accomplished. As seen in today's news, the Russians sure are.