The Democrats don't look like
They could win a local city
Board race right now. A communist,
An old man seemingly lost in
Pre-dementia, mayor of the 4th
Largest city in Indiana. A pathological
Liar from Mass. And two billionaires
From a party that hates billionaires.
Nice.
The Real Russia Story is about the Dems
- Hashi Lebwohl
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 19576
- Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm
We have a thread for discussing election precognition already; let's redirect this current topic back that way.
The current hints of Russia interfering with campaigns are now just parodies of 2016--to date, the Russians are supposedly interfering for Trump and for Sanders with no credible proof of either accusation. Since the reports are against both of those two we have to ask "who benefits the most from those two potentially being damaged?". Answer: Biden, therefore the reports were coming from Biden's campaign.
The current hints of Russia interfering with campaigns are now just parodies of 2016--to date, the Russians are supposedly interfering for Trump and for Sanders with no credible proof of either accusation. Since the reports are against both of those two we have to ask "who benefits the most from those two potentially being damaged?". Answer: Biden, therefore the reports were coming from Biden's campaign.
The Tank is gone and now so am I.
- Skyweir
- Lord of Light
- Posts: 25372
- Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 6:27 am
- Location: Australia
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 18 times
Thats one theory but the Russians dont care about any of your candidates ... their object is to incite chaos, division and destabilise.
They definitely want to keep Trump in office as he serves their purposes perfectly.
They definitely want to keep Trump in office as he serves their purposes perfectly.
keep smiling
'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
EZBoard SURVIVOR
- Hashi Lebwohl
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 19576
- Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm
Exactly. There was never any tampering with actual voting machines--which would be the technical definition of "interfering with an election"--but there was a social media campaign designed to influence people. The problem with trying to prosecute that is that sending out misinformation via social media posts is not illegal. I can go on to Facebook and--if it isn't overtly racist or pornographic--then I can suggest anything I want to in an effort to get people to vote for or against something and I don't have to provide proof of my claim. Try all you want to but you won't find a single actual law that was broken.
This time, just the mention of the [/b]possibility[/b] of interference is sufficient to have its intended effect--insecurity.
I still maintain that the person who stood to benefit most from casting doubt on the Sanders Campaign--Joe Biden-- is the one who suggested it to the media.
This time, just the mention of the [/b]possibility[/b] of interference is sufficient to have its intended effect--insecurity.
I still maintain that the person who stood to benefit most from casting doubt on the Sanders Campaign--Joe Biden-- is the one who suggested it to the media.
The Tank is gone and now so am I.
- Avatar
- Immanentizing The Eschaton
- Posts: 61746
- Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
- Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
- Has thanked: 15 times
- Been thanked: 21 times
Yeah, can't argue with that. If "attempting to influence" counts as "interfering," well then everybody is doing it.Hashi Lebwohl wrote:Exactly. There was never any tampering with actual voting machines--which would be the technical definition of "interfering with an election"--but there was a social media campaign designed to influence people. The problem with trying to prosecute that is that sending out misinformation via social media posts is not illegal. I can go on to Facebook and--if it isn't overtly racist or pornographic--then I can suggest anything I want to in an effort to get people to vote for or against something and I don't have to provide proof of my claim. Try all you want to but you won't find a single actual law that was broken.
It's not however a distinction which is usually drawn in argument I fear. What the people saying "but the Russians interfered with the election" actually mean is that they attempted to influence voter opinion by disseminating via paid means) false and misleading information.
Which I agree, there is no doubt that people did.
What the people saying "No they didn't interfere" mean is that, as you say, no law was broken, no fake votes were cast, etc.
But all that gets across is "Yes they did, why can't you see that" and "No they didn't, why can't you see that?"
--A
- Hashi Lebwohl
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 19576
- Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm