Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
stevemagegod

My Thoughts on the Russia Conspiracy

368 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Farmer77
Just now, bee said:


The Russians are Coming The Russians are Coming Forget  about Radical Islam the Russians are Coming -

 

No dont forget about radical Islam , just keep its threat into perspective.  The statistics simply dont warrant the amount of panic, money or lives spent on the issue. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
2 hours ago, Paranormal Panther said:

I almost voted for Clinton, but a pretty college girl told me that all the cool guys like Trump. It turned out that she was really a fat Russian troll named Boris.

It is amazing how it is evolving that 126 million views (Worldwide) has turned into 126 million US citizens influenced. I imagine in a couple days many "news" sites will stop using, "as many as...", and just state 126 million US citizens viewed a "Russian" Facebook post.

So, the internet says about 214 million US citizens have Facebook, and 1.8 billion people worldwide. So, that means about half the US Facebook users had ONE post (statistically) that came up on their Facebook, that was paid for by the Russians (supposedly). Half of which (I read) occurred after the November election date. And we're supposed to believe that that quarter of US facebook users (or 1/30th of US users (if we use the 1.8 billion worldwide users), as Facebook can't say where the posts were read exactly) were influenced by that one post that came across their feed... randomly?

I think it was facebook that said the Russian paid posts would be 1/4000th of one percent of their content. And we're to believe that such a thing affected the Presidential election?? ---Sigh--- 

I don't have facebook, but almost everyone else I know does, and they scroll past things like this without stopping. 90% of US Facebook users would have ignored these posts. The article below says how the Russian Trolls would get a couple dozen likes on such posts, and be happy about it. That really doesn't sound like it could have affected an election on a nationwide scale. ---- More NOTHING BURGER ----

http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/30/media/russia-facebook-126-million-users/index.html

Quote

Nevertheless, Facebook says in its testimony that the posts from those pages represented "a tiny fraction of the overall content on Facebook."

"This equals about four-thousandths of one percent (0.004%) of content in News Feed, or approximately 1 out of 23,000 pieces of content," Stretch writes. "Put another way, if each of these posts were a commercial on television, you'd have to watch more than 600 hours of television to see something from the IRA."

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
25 minutes ago, bee said:

 

Oh - here you are -  Morgan Freeman made the announcement - ^_^

 

(either he has a really bad case of Trump Derangement Syndrome or '''they''' have something on him) :ph34r: :D
 

 

Wow! I wonder does the US do internet/cyber influencing of foreign nations? Do we promote radical change in foreign governments? 

Good old Uncle Morgan handing out free cool aid in this video.

I thought we did figure out what the Russians have done... A handful of cyber attacks on state election systems. Some (accused) half hearted email hacking. A token amount of money spend on incendiary posts on Facebook.... 

Really.... Is this lame amount of cyber attacking really going to flip an election? That's what the DNC seems to think. Apparently a handful of garage level hackers can bring the DNC and the Clinton Campaign to their knees??

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
1 minute ago, DieChecker said:

It is amazing how it is evolving that 126 million views (Worldwide) has turned into 126 million US citizens influenced. I imagine in a couple days many "news" sites will stop using, "as many as...", and just state 126 million US citizens viewed a "Russian" Facebook post.

So, the internet says about 214 million US citizens have Facebook, and 1.8 billion people worldwide. So, that means about half the US Facebook users had ONE post (statistically) that came up on their Facebook, that was paid for by the Russians (supposedly). Half of which (I read) occurred after the November election date. And we're supposed to believe that that quarter of US facebook users (or 1/30th of US users (if we use the 1.8 billion worldwide users), as Facebook can't say where the posts were read exactly) were influenced by that one post that came across their feed... randomly?

I think it was facebook that said the Russian paid posts would be 1/4000th of one percent of their content. And we're to believe that such a thing affected the Presidential election?? ---Sigh--- 

I don't have facebook, but almost everyone else I know does, and they scroll past things like this without stopping. 90% of US Facebook users would have ignored these posts. The article below says how the Russian Trolls would get a couple dozen likes on such posts, and be happy about it. That really doesn't sound like it could have affected an election on a nationwide scale. ---- More NOTHING BURGER ----

http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/30/media/russia-facebook-126-million-users/index.html

 

Not a nothingburger, im not sure if you're actually missing the point or intentionally being coy here but the whole Russia meddling thing really has absolutely nothing to do with the outcome of the election and everything to do with the well being of our nation. 

We have a thread here on this forum about competing pro and anti muslim rallies which were set up via social media by the Russians. Thats a very real example of how their actions attempted to cause or exasperate divisions in our nation. The Russian meddling in our nation needs to be addressed and it has nothing to do with the outcome of the 2016 election. 

Im curious if your - and in your defense many others' - reactions would be the same if you simply swapped the title 'Russians' for the name 'Soros'.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
2 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Really.... Is this lame amount of cyber attacking really going to flip an election? That's what the DNC seems to think. Apparently a handful of garage level hackers can bring the DNC and the Clinton Campaign to their knees??

Its actually not what the DNC thinks. 

Why did Trump win? New research by Democrats offers a worrisome answer. 

Quote

Top Democratic pollsters have conducted private focus groups and polling in an effort to answer that question, and they shared the results with me.

One finding from the polling stands out: A shockingly large percentage of these Obama-Trump voters said Democrats’ economic policies will favor the wealthy — twice the percentage that said the same about Trump. I was also permitted to view video of some focus group activity, which showed Obama-Trump voters offering sharp criticism of Democrats on the economy.

Some serious irony in that polling....I really cant believe people fell for a "billionaire" playing the populist. 

DNC Staff: Arrogance Cost Clinton the Election 

Quote

Clinton's loss at the hands of Donald Trump amounted to the most surprising outcome in the history of modern electoral politics. Of course things could've been done differently. And ignoring that fact wasn't going to make the searing defeat any easier.

"We are p***ed at them and state parties are p***ed at them because they lost due to arrogance," a top DNC staffer tells U.S. News, sharing the candid sentiment suffusing the high levels of the committee in exchange for anonymity.

 

Now will you hear anyone bashing their dear leader publicly? Thats another issue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee
6 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

No dont forget about radical Islam , just keep its threat into perspective.  The statistics simply dont warrant the amount of panic, money or lives spent on the issue. 

 

 

Go tell Morgan Freeman (and whoever wrote the script and produced the 'We are at War' video) to keep the '''''''Russian Threat''''''
in perspective -

It's painfully obvious that it is part of a long term propaganda strategy generated by the Globalist Overlords  using politicians
and Hollywood celebrities to move towards the One World Government and Economy that they are planning ( outside the
democratic process) - I mean - what ARE they going to do about Russia..? .... How to destabilise the country occupying the biggest
land mass on the planet .. ?... 

:huh:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
5 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Not a nothingburger, im not sure if you're actually missing the point or intentionally being coy here but the whole Russia meddling thing really has absolutely nothing to do with the outcome of the election and everything to do with the well being of our nation. 

We have a thread here on this forum about competing pro and anti muslim rallies which were set up via social media by the Russians. Thats a very real example of how their actions attempted to cause or exasperate divisions in our nation. The Russian meddling in our nation needs to be addressed and it has nothing to do with the outcome of the 2016 election. 

Im curious if your - and in your defense many others' - reactions would be the same if you simply swapped the title 'Russians' for the name 'Soros'.  

I think my point would be that the Russians are influencing (perhaps) thousands of people. And probably those who are so far right, or so far left, that they are easily influenced. It is not like they are influencing hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of US citizens. That are a splinter in the finger, not a amputated hand.

I do agree that it should be looked into, but I don't feel it is necessary of the HIGH DRAMA, that it is being made into.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
2 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Its actually not what the DNC thinks. 

Why did Trump win? New research by Democrats offers a worrisome answer. 

Some serious irony in that polling....I really cant believe people fell for a "billionaire" playing the populist. 

DNC Staff: Arrogance Cost Clinton the Election 

 

Now will you hear anyone bashing their dear leader publicly? Thats another issue. 

Well, actually the DNC is the Democratic National Committee. I wasn't meaning to imply Democrat voters thought that. It does seem that the Democrat leadership, including the members of the DNC, are out to get Trump, and are prepared to believe that a handful of Internet Trolls, funded by the Russian Government, overthrew the 2016 election. Why else would there be such elation over Google, Twitter and Facebook, going to Washington to face Congress?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
1 minute ago, DieChecker said:

Why else would there be such elation over Google, Twitter and Facebook, going to Washington to face Congress?

I gotta be totally honest I think if Trump weren't so adamant that its all a "hoax" , despite what so many intelligence agencies say ,  much of the elation would die away. As is though its like Christmas every time he's proven wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
33 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Hey thats a really cool ad! 

Kinda ironic that liberals are more concerned about national security than republicans. 21st century politics are a trip. 

LOL. 

Concerned about national security ? Remind me again... which party was it that was so careless that they allowed their IT systems to be hacked, and umpty-thousand of their emails to be stolen ? Allegedly by "the Russians". And which party was it who's presidential candidate - whilst in her previous role as Secretary of State - used an unsecured private email server to conduct government business, including transmission/reception of confidential (or even "secret") information, over an unsecured wireless link, whillst in a foreign country ? 

Incredible !

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
8 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

I gotta be totally honest I think if Trump weren't so adamant that its all a "hoax" , despite what so many intelligence agencies say ,  much of the elation would die away. As is though its like Christmas every time he's proven wrong. 

If nothing else, Trump gives the media Pundits of the Left and Right almost unlimited things to discuss. And that is outside of policy issues. :lol:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
1 minute ago, RoofGardener said:

LOL. 

Concerned about national security ? Remind me again... which party was it that was so careless that they allowed their IT systems to be hacked, and umpty-thousand of their emails to be stolen ? Allegedly by "the Russians". And which party was it who's presidential candidate - whilst in her previous role as Secretary of State - used an unsecured private email server to conduct government business, including transmission/reception of confidential (or even "secret") information, over an unsecured wireless link, whillst in a foreign country ? 

Incredible !

 

Sigh ..........I was speaking of the individuals on the forum here, not the parties. 

BUt if you wanna talk about parties we can I suppose:

Ivanka Trump Used Private Emails With Newt Gingrich and Treasury Department :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
1 minute ago, Farmer77 said:

Sigh ..........I was speaking of the individuals on the forum here, not the parties. 

BUt if you wanna talk about parties we can I suppose:

Ivanka Trump Used Private Emails With Newt Gingrich and Treasury Department :P

Ooops.... sorry.... missed your meaning. (again). (2/10.... must try harder).  :) 

Still, my point is still valid ? 

As for Ivanka ... bear in mind that using private email addresses for government business is PERMITTED... providing only that the relevant government department is copied in on all transactions. (which Hillary not only failed to do, but set up a system that deliberately circumvented it). 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
Just now, RoofGardener said:

Ooops.... sorry.... missed your meaning. (again). (2/10.... must try harder).  :) 

Still, my point is still valid ? 

As for Ivanka ... bear in mind that using private email addresses for government business is PERMITTED... providing only that the relevant government department is copied in on all transactions. (which Hillary not only failed to do, but set up a system that deliberately circumvented it). 

Im really not playing tit for tat and CERTAINLY not defending Hillary, I was just having some fun by throwing that out there ! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
8 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Im really not playing tit for tat and CERTAINLY not defending Hillary, I was just having some fun by throwing that out there ! 

You are an Imp of Chaos ! :P 

And I havn't forgiven you yet for targeting Fox News, and causing internal Dissent ! (that WAS you, wasn't it ? ). 

I haven't YET worked out how to blame you for causing it to rain, hence cancelling my Gardening thismorning. But trust me.... I'm working on it ! :devil:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs
55 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

And, from what I've read, Clinton also had numerous contacts with the Russians in 2015 and 2016. Yet that's not news....

Shrug.....

If you have evidence that multiple western intelligence agencies are raising red flags for Team Clinton's collusion with Russia -- let me know.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
2 hours ago, Tiggs said:

If you have evidence that multiple western intelligence agencies are raising red flags for Team Clinton's collusion with Russia -- let me know.

Clinton collusion? Wasn't this already put out? With the DNC, and specifically the Clinton campaign, financing the fake Trump dossier? A dossier that was the main intelligence that spurred the initial Intelligence community investigations into Trump regarding Russia? 

A case could be made logically that this dossier was known to be possibly contrived, and yet the FBI and other intelligence agencies coordinated with the DNC/Clinton to investigate Trump.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.510cf4080a80 

I didn't say Clinton colluded with the Russians. I said (or tried to imply at least) that there were numerous points of communication, and overlapping points of interest, between the Clinton Campaign and the Russian Government.

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly

Well after all, it was Obama and Clinton (as Secretary of State) that made that Uranium One deal with Russia. So there does exist precedent that Democrats do indeed deal with Russians. If you take a look at the inner workings of DC there exists a great deal of contact with Russia. Until Trump this kind of thing was never referred to as being 'collusion' though. IMO there's something odd about the whole Trump/Russia collusion thing.

Also, during the election campaign I recall all sorts of speculation that WikiLeaks had obtained the DNC/Podesta emails from some Russian hacker, despite Assange denying they obtained them from Russia at all. Do we even know to this day where (and from whom) those emails originated? Like I said, there's just something a bit 'off' about this entire matter. Hey, I suspect team Trump did indeed talk to Russians, did indeed seek to find dirt on the opposition...because this is what election teams do! Heck, the Clinton team actually paid a research team to go forth and get dirt on Trump and it appears that said dirt was concocted by the Russians themselves! Where is the talk of collusion there?

This whole thing is utterly amazing...the news media would have us all believe that only team Trump was capable of dirty politics, even direct evidence to the contrary is simply ignored. Just look how the Donna Brazile allegations are barely being touched upon. Politics is a dirty business and this is nothing new. However, co-opting most of the news media to favor only one side is a new tactic. If anyone wants to be 'upset' about any aspect of all this the behavior of the news media should be the top issue on their list.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs
7 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Clinton collusion? Wasn't this already put out? With the DNC, and specifically the Clinton campaign, financing the fake Trump dossier? A dossier that was the main intelligence that spurred the initial Intelligence community investigations into Trump regarding Russia? 

A case could be made logically that this dossier was known to be possibly contrived, and yet the FBI and other intelligence agencies coordinated with the DNC/Clinton to investigate Trump.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.510cf4080a80 

I didn't say Clinton colluded with the Russians. I said (or tried to imply at least) that there were numerous points of communication, and overlapping points of interest, between the Clinton Campaign and the Russian Government.

Well. Top of my head, there's a couple of holes in your case that you're going to need to patch for:

Firstly -- and rather fatally for your timeline of events --- the FBI investigation into Russian interference started before Steele began work on the dossier. In fact, the investigation ran for several months before the FBI became aware of it's existence.

Secondly -- and again, rather fatally -- the dossier played absolutely no role in the intelligence community's assessment that Russia had interfered in the election, according to Robert Litt -- the General Counsel to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.


As for the "numerous points of communication" and "overlapping points of interest", maybe this will help:

"The distinction: Steele spied against Russia to get info Russia did not want released; Don Jr took a mtg to get info Russians wanted to give" -- Steven L. Hall, former CIA chief of Russian Operations.

One of those is an example of working with Russia, to further Russia's interests. One of them isn't.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly

My Dad used to say, "consider the source" when obtaining any information. That British Agent Steele openly admits that his sources were a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure and a former top level intelligence officer still active in the Kremlin! And we're just going to believe that these men are telling us the truth? Really?

At this point in time I'd say that both Trump and Clinton were 'colluding' with the Russians (if that's what one cares to call it). Personally, I'd call this having both of their chains yanked by the Russians. If the Russians wanted to mess with our political system they sure as hell have been effective.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.ZZ.
8 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Whether the attempt was successful or not really isnt the point. 

Sounds like you are admitting the Russians didn't change any votes, after all, isn't THAT the point of all the collusion crap? --------- Votes?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly
14 minutes ago, .ZZ. said:

Sounds like you are admitting the Russians didn't change any votes, after all, isn't THAT the point of all the collusion crap? --------- Votes?

IMO the point of all this "collusion crap" is to resist and hopefully destroy the opposition (aka the Trump Presidency).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.ZZ.
14 minutes ago, Lilly said:

IMO the point of all this "collusion crap" is to resist and hopefully destroy the opposition (aka the Trump Presidency).

I could have phrased that better. I meant during the campaign.

The bottom line for me: Russians didn't affect my vote.

Edited by .ZZ.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs
14 minutes ago, Lilly said:

Well after all, it was Obama and Clinton (as Secretary of State) that made that Uranium One deal with Russia. So there does exist precedent that Democrats do indeed deal with Russians.

It's actually a Reagan Era government inter-agency committee called the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States that makes those decisions. The State Department is just one of nine government agencies involved -- and there's no evidence that Clinton took any part in the decision.
 

14 minutes ago, Lilly said:

If you take a look at the inner workings of DC there exists a great deal of contact with Russia. Until Trump this kind of thing was never referred to as being 'collusion' though. IMO there's something odd about the whole Trump/Russia collusion thing.

Perhaps you missed the part where the US intelligence community concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 US election.

Bit of a game changer, apparently.
 

18 minutes ago, Lilly said:

Also, during the election campaign I recall all sorts of speculation that WikiLeaks had obtained the DNC/Podesta emails from some Russian hacker, despite Assange denying they obtained them from Russia at all. Do we even know to this day where (and from whom) those emails originated? Like I said, there's just something a bit 'off' about this entire matter. Hey, I suspect team Trump did indeed talk to Russians, did indeed seek to find dirt on the opposition...because this is what election teams do! Heck, the Clinton team actually paid a research team to go forth and get dirt on Trump and it appears that said dirt was concocted by the Russians themselves! Where is the talk of collusion there?  

Opposition research is what campaign's do. What they generally don't do, however, is (allegedly) enter into a conspiracy to release their opponents emails in exchange for easing sanctions on a foreign government.

As for Wiki "a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia" Leaks?

Maybe the opening paragraph from this recent WSJ article will help straighten out what Mueller's current thinking is on where those emails came from:

The Justice Department has identified more than six members of the Russian government involved in hacking the Democratic National Committee’s computers and swiping sensitive information that became public during the 2016 presidential election, according to people familiar with the investigation.

 

18 minutes ago, Lilly said:

This whole thing is utterly amazing...the news media would have us all believe that only team Trump was capable of dirty politics, even direct evidence to the contrary is simply ignored. Just look how the Donna Brazile allegations are barely being touched upon. Politics is a dirty business and this is nothing new. However, co-opting most of the news media to favor only one side is a new tactic. If anyone wants to be 'upset' about any aspect of all this the behavior of the news media should be the top issue on their list.  

Have you ever considered the possibility that they haven't been co-opted, and are just reporting the facts as they find them?

Quite honestly, the Brazile allegations would probably have gotten a lot more traction if the contract in question had actually applied to the primaries, rather than the general election.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly
2 minutes ago, .ZZ. said:

I could have phrased that better. I meant during the campaign.

The bottom line for me: Russians didn't effect my vote.

I don't think Russia really affected anyone's vote...not that I've seen anyway.

Russia has been trying to mess with us and our election process since I was a kid...and I'm over 60!

I respectfully will just have to disagree with those who see this differently. From what I can see both Ds and Rs have "colluded' with Russia (under the current definition of collusion that is).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.