Who Meddled more Putin or Trump? The Collusion Thread visits Venezuela

paulsurovell said:

Good example of the claim it's "proven" that leaked emails and incendiary facebook ads were "hacked" and "bought" at the direction of the Russian government.

 Though the context isn’t directly the Russian government’s role or non-role, there’s a relevant passage in the article on the standard of proof.

An airtight case, she acknowledges, may never be possible. In the introduction to her new book, she writes that any case for influence will likely be similar to that in a civil legal trial, “in which the verdict is rendered not with the certainty that e=mc2 but rather based on the preponderance of evidence.” But, she points out, “we do make most of life’s decisions based on less-than-rock-solid, incontrovertible evidence.” In Philadelphia, she noted to me that “we convict people on probabilities rather than absolute certainty, and we’ve executed people based on inferences from available evidence.” She argued that “the standard of proof being demanded” by people claiming it’s impossible to know whether Russia delivered the White House to Trump is “substantially higher than the standard of proof we ordinarily use in our lives.”

DaveSchmidt said:

dave23 said:
You misunderstand the purpose of efforts like Blacktivist. They were intended to scare white people.

 Also, to influence voters without their being able to remember a specific page or ad that did the trick.

 Ahah! Plausible deniability. Putin is a genius!

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

Good example of the claim it's "proven" that leaked emails and incendiary facebook ads were "hacked" and "bought" at the direction of the Russian government.

 Though the context isn’t directly the Russian government’s role or non-role, there’s a relevant passage in the article on the standard of proof.

An airtight case, she acknowledges, may never be possible. In the introduction to her new book, she writes that any case for influence will likely be similar to that in a civil legal trial, “in which the verdict is rendered not with the certainty that e=mc2 but rather based on the preponderance of evidence.” But, she points out, “we do make most of life’s decisions based on less-than-rock-solid, incontrovertible evidence.” In Philadelphia, she noted to me that “we convict people on probabilities rather than absolute certainty, and we’ve executed people based on inferences from available evidence.” She argued that “the standard of proof being demanded” by people claiming it’s impossible to know whether Russia delivered the White House to Trump is “substantially higher than the standard of proof we ordinarily use in our lives.”

Every time she uses the phrase "the Russians" the subtext is either "Russian government," "Russian government-directed" or "Putin."  I don't think Jane describes anything by the Russians as "alleged," which is the journalistic malpractice I'm talking about.

paulsurovell said:

DaveSchmidt said:

dave23 said:
You misunderstand the purpose of efforts like Blacktivist. They were intended to scare white people.

 Also, to influence voters without their being able to remember a specific page or ad that did the trick.

 Ahah! Plausible deniability. Putin is a genius!

It's called marketing.

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:

DaveSchmidt said:

dave23 said:
You misunderstand the purpose of efforts like Blacktivist. They were intended to scare white people.

 Also, to influence voters without their being able to remember a specific page or ad that did the trick.

 Ahah! Plausible deniability. Putin is a genius!

It's called marketing.

 I'm pretty sure this helped some.

https://www.upguard.com/breaches/the-rnc-files

paulsurovell said:

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

Good example of the claim it's "proven" that leaked emails and incendiary facebook ads were "hacked" and "bought" at the direction of the Russian government.

 Though the context isn’t directly the Russian government’s role or non-role, there’s a relevant passage in the article on the standard of proof.

An airtight case, she acknowledges, may never be possible. In the introduction to her new book, she writes that any case for influence will likely be similar to that in a civil legal trial, “in which the verdict is rendered not with the certainty that e=mc2 but rather based on the preponderance of evidence.” But, she points out, “we do make most of life’s decisions based on less-than-rock-solid, incontrovertible evidence.” In Philadelphia, she noted to me that “we convict people on probabilities rather than absolute certainty, and we’ve executed people based on inferences from available evidence.” She argued that “the standard of proof being demanded” by people claiming it’s impossible to know whether Russia delivered the White House to Trump is “substantially higher than the standard of proof we ordinarily use in our lives.”

Every time she uses the phrase "the Russians" the subtext is either "Russian government," "Russian government-directed" or "Putin."  I don't think Jane describes anything by the Russians as "alleged," which is the journalistic malpractice I'm talking about.

Don't just stop at the relatively mild term "journalistic malpractice" to describe Jane Mayer.  You used much stronger language on Twitter.  Since you decided to post one of my tweets recently, I will return the favor.  This is how you described the work on that article by Jane Mayer (author of "The Dark Side" and a journalist who has done some incredibly important work on sexual assault and "Me Too" recently):  "Careerism, group-think, cowardice, brainwashing, stupidity,."

https://twitter.com/paulsurovell/status/1044457211404177408

What comes through that article is that Jane Mayer and Kathleen Hall Jamieson are two thoughtful pros doing their best to illuminate what happened, with some humility about the certainty.

ETA: I know, I know. “It’s called marketing.”

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

Good example of the claim it's "proven" that leaked emails and incendiary facebook ads were "hacked" and "bought" at the direction of the Russian government.

 Though the context isn’t directly the Russian government’s role or non-role, there’s a relevant passage in the article on the standard of proof.

An airtight case, she acknowledges, may never be possible. In the introduction to her new book, she writes that any case for influence will likely be similar to that in a civil legal trial, “in which the verdict is rendered not with the certainty that e=mc2 but rather based on the preponderance of evidence.” But, she points out, “we do make most of life’s decisions based on less-than-rock-solid, incontrovertible evidence.” In Philadelphia, she noted to me that “we convict people on probabilities rather than absolute certainty, and we’ve executed people based on inferences from available evidence.” She argued that “the standard of proof being demanded” by people claiming it’s impossible to know whether Russia delivered the White House to Trump is “substantially higher than the standard of proof we ordinarily use in our lives.”

Every time she uses the phrase "the Russians" the subtext is either "Russian government," "Russian government-directed" or "Putin."  I don't think Jane describes anything by the Russians as "alleged," which is the journalistic malpractice I'm talking about.

Don't just stop at the relatively mild term "journalistic malpractice" to describe Jane Mayer.  You used much stronger language on Twitter.  Since you decided to post one of my tweets recently, I will return the favor.  This is how you described the work on that article by Jane Mayer (author of "The Dark Side" and a journalist who has done some incredibly important work on sexual assault and "Me Too" recently):  "Careerism, group-think, cowardice, brainwashing, stupidity,."
https://twitter.com/paulsurovell/status/1044457211404177408

 So @South_Mountaineer has grown from telling people on Twitter about my MOL comments, to telling people on MOL about my Twitter comments. I appreciate the publicity, but what he has written at both ends needs to be corrected.

My Twitter comment that S/M posted above:

"Careerism, group-think, cowardice, brainwashing, stupidity,."

Was a response to Aaron Mate's tweet:

The latest contribution to the "Trump is Russia's fault" cannon. It remains puzzling to me that so many reputable outlets & stellar journalists have opted to participate in a two-year, Cold War-infused wellness project & marketing campaign for failed Democratic elites:

So what I wrote applies to all journalists pushing the bogus Russia conspiracy story and who should know better, not just Jane Mayer, who like many other good journalists has succumbed to the pressures and failings listed above.

More top-drawer journalism on how Russia is destroying America:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/star-wars-last-jedi-was-targeted-by-russian-trolls-study-says-1148475?utm_source=twitter

paulsurovell said:
More top-drawer journalism on how Russia is destroying America:
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/star-wars-last-jedi-was-targeted-by-russian-trolls-study-says-1148475?utm_source=twitter

Once you get beyond the superficial aspects (such as using a "Star Wars" movie as the subject of the study), there are substantive concerns.  As the abstract of the paper says --

Political discourse on social media is seen by many as polarized, vitriolic and permeated by falsehoods and misinformation. Political operators have exploited all of these aspects of the discourse for strategic purposes, most famously during the Russian social media influence campaign during the 2016 Presidential election in the United States and current, similar efforts targeting the U.S. elections in 2018 and 2020. The results of the social media study presented in this paper presents evidence that political influence through manipulation of social media discussions is no longer exclusive to political debate but can now also be found in pop culture. ... The study finds evidence of deliberate, organized political influence measures disguised as fan arguments. The likely objective of these measures is increasing media coverage of the fandom conflict, thereby adding to and further propagating a narrative of widespread discord and dysfunction in American society. Persuading voters of this narrative remains a strategic goal for the U.S. alt-right movement, as well as the Russian Federation.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328006677_Weaponizing_the_haters_The_Last_Jedi_and_the_strategic_politicization_of_pop_culture_through_social_media_manipulation 

But just as Trump's audience this evening cheered as he mocked Professor Blasey Ford, as he appealed to their ignorance about memory and the reactions of sexual assault survivors, there are those who will focus only on the superficial aspects of the study in order to ignore the larger significance of the findings.

paulsurovell said:
So @South_Mountaineer has grown from telling people on Twitter about my MOL comments, to telling people on MOL about my Twitter comments. I appreciate the publicity, but what he has written at both ends needs to be corrected.
My Twitter comment that S/M posted above:

"Careerism, group-think, cowardice, brainwashing, stupidity,."

Was a response to Aaron Mate's tweet:

The latest contribution to the "Trump is Russia's fault" cannon. It remains puzzling to me that so many reputable outlets & stellar journalists have opted to participate in a two-year, Cold War-infused wellness project & marketing campaign for failed Democratic elites:

So what I wrote applies to all journalists pushing the bogus Russia conspiracy story and who should know better, not just Jane Mayer, who like many other good journalists has succumbed to the pressures and failings listed above.

 As you know, and as I mentioned, you posted a tweet of mine to make a deceptive attack.  So criticizing someone for something you did first makes you look like our President, who does that all the time.  

That being said, your "clarification" doesn't make you look any better.  Anybody can click on the link to your tweet, where your reply was to Aaron Mate posting Jane Mayer's article.  So "not just Jane Mayer" doesn't really matter.

They can also see my comment to you, to which you chose not to argue with -- 

Jane Mayer (@JaneMayerNYer) can hardly be accused of "cowardice" or "stupidity". She has such well-deserved, stellar reputation that smears from you guys saying otherwise don't really matter.

Nothing you wrote in response to my earlier post invalidates that comment.

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:
So @South_Mountaineer has grown from telling people on Twitter about my MOL comments, to telling people on MOL about my Twitter comments. I appreciate the publicity, but what he has written at both ends needs to be corrected.
My Twitter comment that S/M posted above:

"Careerism, group-think, cowardice, brainwashing, stupidity,."

Was a response to Aaron Mate's tweet:

The latest contribution to the "Trump is Russia's fault" cannon. It remains puzzling to me that so many reputable outlets & stellar journalists have opted to participate in a two-year, Cold War-infused wellness project & marketing campaign for failed Democratic elites:

So what I wrote applies to all journalists pushing the bogus Russia conspiracy story and who should know better, not just Jane Mayer, who like many other good journalists has succumbed to the pressures and failings listed above.

 As you know, and as I mentioned, you posted a tweet of mine to make a deceptive attack.  So criticizing someone for something you did first makes you look like our President, who does that all the time.  
That being said, your "clarification" doesn't make you look any better.  Anybody can click on the link to your tweet, where your reply was to Aaron Mate posting Jane Mayer's article.  So "not just Jane Mayer" doesn't really matter.
They can also see my comment to you, to which you chose not to argue with -- 

Jane Mayer (@JaneMayerNYer) can hardly be accused of "cowardice" or "stupidity". She has such well-deserved, stellar reputation that smears from you guys saying otherwise don't really matter.

Nothing you wrote in response to my earlier post invalidates that comment.

 I didn't realize you commented on the Tweet.  I'll answer it and report back here shortly.

v

Wait, you’ve falsely accused me of singling out Jane Mayer!

Aw, heck, I’ll go ahead and single out Jane Mayer.

DaveSchmidt said:
Wait, you’ve falsely accused me of singling out Jane Mayer!
Aw, heck, I’ll go ahead and single out Jane Mayer.

You're missing the sequence of the statements.

I made a general statement. S/M said it didn't apply to Jane Meyer. I explained how the general applied to her.

Edited to Add:  And here's S/M's pretty reply

Two high-level Trump admin officials threaten war with Russia.

Democrats don't object because they are so deep into Russiagate they are incapable of challenging any anti-Russian rhetoric, including threats of real  war.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/energy/ryan-zinke-naval-blockade-is-an-option-for-dealing-with-russia

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nuclear-russia/u-s-would-destroy-banned-russian-warheads-if-necessary-nato-envoy-idUSKCN1MC1J6

Paul - if I were you - I'd focus more energy on the impending war with Iran.

paulsurovell said:

DaveSchmidt said:
Wait, you’ve falsely accused me of singling out Jane Mayer!
Aw, heck, I’ll go ahead and single out Jane Mayer.

You're missing the sequence of the statements.
I made a general statement. S/M said it didn't apply to Jane Meyer. I explained how the general applied to her.
Edited to Add:  And here's S/M's pretty reply

You posted a picture of what I wrote.  I didn't write that you didn't intend it to apply to Jane Mayer.  You most certainly did, especially since you placed it right under Aaron Mate's link to her article.  You didn't have to "explain" anything to me.  I don't understand how you can post a picture and then misrepresent the words in that picture of the tweets.

Post edited to add -- Happy to see you saw the reply this time, instead of somehow missing my earlier reply.  My comment was an appropriate description of your baseless insults, with a complete misrepresentation of the point of Ms. Mayer's article.  Between my comment and yours, I'd rate yours as the obscene one.

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

DaveSchmidt said:
Wait, you’ve falsely accused me of singling out Jane Mayer!
Aw, heck, I’ll go ahead and single out Jane Mayer.

You're missing the sequence of the statements.
I made a general statement. S/M said it didn't apply to Jane Meyer. I explained how the general applied to her.
Edited to Add:  And here's S/M's pretty reply

You posted a picture of what I wrote.  I didn't write that you didn't intend it to apply to Jane Mayer.  You most certainly did, especially since you placed it right under Aaron Mate's link to her article.  You didn't have to "explain" anything to me.  I don't understand how you can post a picture and then misrepresent the words in that picture of the tweets.
Post edited to add -- Happy to see you saw the reply this time, instead of somehow missing my earlier reply.  My comment was an appropriate description of your baseless insults, with a complete misrepresentation of the point of Ms. Mayer's article.  Between my comment and yours, I'd rate yours as the obscene one.
 

jamie said:
Paul - if I were you - I'd focus more energy on the impending war with Iran.

 Not concerned about threats of real war against Russia?

Agreed that threats against Iran are also important. See my pinned tweet. And this.

And there's US involvement in Yemen and Syria.

Some really bad stuff in Ukraine, too:

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/250641

All will be updated.

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

DaveSchmidt said:
Wait, you’ve falsely accused me of singling out Jane Mayer!
Aw, heck, I’ll go ahead and single out Jane Mayer.

You're missing the sequence of the statements.
I made a general statement. S/M said it didn't apply to Jane Meyer. I explained how the general applied to her.
Edited to Add:  And here's S/M's pretty reply

You posted a picture of what I wrote.  I didn't write that you didn't intend it to apply to Jane Mayer.  You most certainly did, especially since you placed it right under Aaron Mate's link to her article.  You didn't have to "explain" anything to me.  I don't understand how you can post a picture and then misrepresent the words in that picture of the tweets.
Post edited to add -- Happy to see you saw the reply this time, instead of somehow missing my earlier reply.  My comment was an appropriate description of your baseless insults, with a complete misrepresentation of the point of Ms. Mayer's article.  Between my comment and yours, I'd rate yours as the obscene one.
 

  

 Until you used it, I didn't know there was an emoticon for "You got me, guilty as charged."

Ouch

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

 

  Until you used it, I didn't know there was an emoticon for "You got me, guilty as charged."

https://www.lingo2word.com/lingodetail.php?WrdID=76967

:-s

does not make sense

strange

incoherent

smiles

confused

confused smiley

surprised

crazy

not sure

unsure

What?

Untitled

:-s does not make sense

strange, incoherent smiles

confused, confused smiley

                                             surprised
                      crazy
not sure? 

unsure

What?

Flash!

https://www.thedailybeast.com/researchers-no-evidence-that-russia-is-messing-with-campaign-2018yet

paulsurovell said:
Flash!
https://www.thedailybeast.com/researchers-no-evidence-that-russia-is-messing-with-campaign-2018yet

By the first week of October 2016, Russia’s pawprints were all over the presidential race. Not this year, researchers say."

Let me guess: You only believe the second half of the subhead.

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:
Flash!
https://www.thedailybeast.com/researchers-no-evidence-that-russia-is-messing-with-campaign-2018yet

By the first week of October 2016, Russia’s pawprints were all over the presidential race. Not this year, researchers say."
Let me guess: You only believe the second half of the subhead.

The odd thing is that for the first 10 months of this year, "researchers" have been claiming continued Russian meddling. What was that about?

As far as what I "believe," I've said many times that I'm not a "believer" in the Russia story because -- apart from the many parts of it that have been debunked -- I don't accept allegations and innuendo as facts, especially when the sources have a history of lying.

paulsurovell said:

The odd thing is that for the first 10 months of this year, "researchers" have been claiming continued Russian meddling. What was that about?
As far as what I "believe," I've said many times that I'm not a "believer" in the Russia story because -- apart from the many parts of it that have been debunked -- I don't accept allegations and innuendo as facts, especially when the sources have a history of lying.

 Yes, you are quite the selective reader. Read past the headline.

It might take a couple of days to get back up and running.

https://themoscowtimes.com/news/infamous-st-petersburg-troll-farm-set-on-fire-63130

ridski said:
It might take a couple of days to get back up and running.
https://themoscowtimes.com/news/infamous-st-petersburg-troll-farm-set-on-fire-63130

 The page loads and is readable for about 30 seconds then forwards to a 404. Nothing to see here...