>Goes on Wikipedia >'Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections' >341 sources "The United States Intelligence Community has concluded with high confidence that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. A January 2017 assessment by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) stated that Russian leadership preferred presidential candidate Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, and that Russian president Vladimir Putin personally ordered an "influence campaign" to harm Clinton's electoral chances and "undermine public faith in the US democratic process.""
I don't get it Sup Forums, wasn't all this Russia stuff just CNN bullshit? What happened?
that's just the quote comey gave before the committee. There's still no evidence that they did anything to the election other than the possibility that they would have wanted Trump instead of Clinton
Andrew Ramirez
Yes, but for anyone with the slightest knowledge of geopolitics and psyops it's quite apparent that the "Deep State" concept is a destabilizing mechanic being exerted on the US. The Russians are making it so that the American people can't even trust their own media, their own intelligence services, their politicians, et c.
Even someone as mainstream as Yuri talked a lot about it. There are currently several "wars on your mind", and Russia has been winning since the 60's - starting with HIV rumours, moon landing conspiracies, flouride mind control, and so forth. In the modern era they've successfully manage to make it so that the vast majority of anti-establishment/anti-mainstream ideas are in harmony with Russian foreign policy. It's highly apparent on Sup Forums, for example.
Angel Davis
>no evidence >341 sources Are you sure?
Noah Fisher
341 sources ending beginning with cnn.com
Xavier Garcia
What happened on the site where anyone can write anything? Is this a real question?
t. kid who cites Wikipedia in his high school assignments.
Elijah Hill
You're aware of how legitimately retarded this board is right? There's more people here who believe pizzagate is real than there are people who believe that Russia meddled with the election.
Carson Rogers
>Sources >Washington Post >Huffington Post >NYTimes >Buzzfeed
Really makes you drink
Gabriel Collins
>Go to sources >All of them said "Yep it totally happened just dont look into it, boy am i sleepy!"
Noah Rivera
>muh russssshaaa >believinv CNNs fake news >being this much of a cretin
Kys svencuck
Srill butfpained about Poltava i bet
Blake King
The same intelligence agencies that said there were WMDs in Iraq. The same intelligence agencies that destabilize foreign countries around the world. You may not be american but you sure are as dumb as one.
Angel Turner
Kiddie rape denier. You disgust me.
Bentley Williams
not an argument
Jonathan Cooper
Nice appeal to emotion, I bet you have to use that a lot when you have 0 (zero) evidence to support that it's real.
Alexander Williams
There is more circumstancial evidence towards Pizzagate than there is about Russian meddling in the election.
Read any of the sources and they're just reporters quoting the same fucking shit.
NO EVIDENCE EXISTS. IF IT DID, WE WOULD HAVE SEEN IT MONTHS AGO.
Joseph Reed
Remember when they called it hacking?
How is it any different then what share blue/crt did and does on normal message boards in disqus or even user boards? The only solid connection that would validate OP's quote would be RT, no?
Russia has done lot to influence us, yes, but this was in the late 50's to the 80's. They pushed their brainwashed guys into education, media and politics.(i.e. sanders/ warren types)
I doubt they really a even fraction of what they once were in terms of that kind of subversive influence.
The media did what they did to themselves. No point in history can you see the media becoming that bias. Wikileaks has yet to be disproved as well, so the evidence of collusion between a single party and the free* worlds most powerful institution still valid and standing.
Aiden Perez
Does a basement that never existed in a restaurant count as evidence?
Ryder Baker
trying to repeat something so much that it becomes "the truth"
The interesting thing is that the Russians use the same tactics on their own people - creating confusion, so that nobody knows what to believe, doing plainly and deliberately obvious psyops. I assume the Americans do the same. It's fascinating.
Wyatt Lee
The only one that didn't swear up and down that there were WMDs in Iraq was the one who didn't exist yet. Those seventeen didn't even examine the server, their conclusion doesn't mean jack and is an insidious combination of argumentum ad popularum and appeal to authority.
Also wikipedia is owned, run, and controlled by leftists.
Adam Morales
What sources would you accept? All of the left wing sources are too left to be trusted and all of the right wing sources obviously aren't going to go anti-Trump.
Benjamin Fisher
Raw data, government records etc Getting real information is next to impossible though for high level government level conspiracies.
Thomas Bailey
So you're saying that you could never know even if this was true?
Dominic Young
Literally one primary source
one
singular
from anyone
> inb4 crowdstrike who literally retracted their statement because podesta didn't pay them enough
Chase Young
I'd like to read reports that claim Russians altered data pertaining to the electoral process. Then I'll say they've interfered.
Remember when they all said Russia "hacked" the election? Then it came out without a reasonable doubt that Russia did not alter one single vote, so now they change it to Russian "interference" which is designed to be as subjective and vague as possible so there's no way to prove or disprove such claims. It's shitty logic at best and disgusting spineless cry-baby behavior at worst.
Jayden Jones
What primary source? It's not like Trump is going to admit to it.
James Edwards
>muh rusha Found our sub yet?
Jordan Fisher
>I doubt they really a even fraction of what they once were in terms of that kind of subversive influence.
Considering that all kinds of things indicate that they have ramped up and evolved psychological operations massively, it would make sense that most people would think that. There was only a brief turn-down in Russian psychological activities during the "new era" of the 90's, before Putin assumed power.
Notable examples include the management of the 1999 apartment bombings, where Russia, as a state actor, created a false-flag as a motive for the 2nd Chechen War. That concept was later turned on the US as a destabilizing activity, to convince the American public of that their own government had killed thousands of civilians.
Then we have Russian interference in the political stability of Ukraine, while pointing the finger at EU/NATO, the de facto invasion of Crimea and the way it was covertly carried out. More recent examples include denial of Syrian gas attacks, as well as everything related to the US election - as well as Brexit. I'm sure you've read articles about the Russian & Chinese "troll armies".
Right-wing sentiments in Europe have been fueled, partly because of the immigration waves - out of which I believe the war in Syria to be a kind of literal "population warfare" against the EU in order to split the union - which it has succeeded to to in part. That's why the Syrian regime accepts the extreme amounts of collateral damage - the collateral is part of the point.
If you're interested in the topic, then I can highly recommend:
>muh right wing news No such thing. Even fox is sowing doubt in most of their segments. They are no longer news, merely entertainment.
Why would you get your news from something that is created as entertainment?
Anthony Edwards
>implying that you've read them
Caleb Reyes
It went back to NS Concord or R/V Professor Logachev nearby. The second of which was also submarine-capable, and for some reason had turned off it's transponder... We ONLY got surface images, witness reports, radar data, and seabed prints - and a shitload of Kremlin-run news-sites telling everyone "IT WASN'T A SUB"
Do you have any questions related to this topic?
Ryan Smith
The American media does a fine job bleeding respectability without any interference
Charles Gutierrez
What i really dislike is how any side might present a as of yet unknown truth in some black and white clear as day truth. If they just reported things and were honest about how they can't yet confidently make sny conclusions but present what evidence exists it would be best.
Much like the scientific method where no single study shows the truth, merely sheds light little by little then a review of the body of evidence might allow a theory to form until its shown to be otherwise.
Jason Sullivan
here's a completely random screencap of the sources. Any of these look like primary sources to you? Or are they all just biased articles that are nothing but speculation?
Daniel Lee
I just don't get why Russia gave the Clinton foundation so much money if Trump was their guy.
>As a result, the trustworthiness of more professionalized forms of journalism is under steady assault.
>Overall, those practicing conventional, objective journalism are in a much different position than they were a generation ago. They are dramatically less trusted by the public, face harsh and persistent political criticism, and must compete with less conventional news sources as well as many other entertainment options.
I wonder why it is that traditional mainstream media are portrayed as evil, why other alternative news outlets are praised for being bringers of truth?
The Guardian, Reuters, AFP, WaPo, NYT, are all presented as part of some conspiracy.
Christopher Reed
Ok. I'll bite. How, exactly did Russia effect the elections?
That's the skinny on it. More on that within a few months, as the Mueller investigation progresses.
Eli Martinez
>report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency(CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA) so you completely ignore the existence of UMBRAGE? does "conflict of interest" not mean anything to you?
>We did not make an assessment of the impact that Russian activities had on the outcome of the 2016 election. The US Intelligence Community is charged with monitoring and assessing the intentions, capabilities, and actions of foreign actors; it does not analyze US political processes or US public opinion.
FFS this is simply an assessment of capability. They don't even make accusations.
I'm capable of killing somebody that doesn't make me a murderer.
Mason Richardson
Yeah, 341 sources saying,"we think Russia would have preferred Trump to win over Clinton".
Elijah Price
...
Justin Hernandez
We have to watch all this stupid tension being created in the world because CIA or whatever "deep state" can't win the elections on their own turf anymore. This wasn't unexpected at all, the British knew a few years in advance that there's an overthrow being organized in USA, hence the Brexit. (((They))) had enough time to plan a good election campaign, but instead (((they))) pandered to mentally ill, and now we have to watch all this stupid tension because autistic mandchildren can't admit defeat.
Brayden Anderson
...
Caleb Sanchez
341 sources...of hearsay.
Levi Perry
But Hilary's emails, though....
Brandon Fisher
Lesson is, pandering to mentally ill works only when you control all the candidates and the plebs have no choice.
Carter Rivera
could you get any more retarded
Angel Hernandez
why and who created that ? it is complete bullshit .
Mindrape Media is now a 'source' Wikipedia is just a mindrape nexus
Gavin Roberts
>The great British Brexit robbery: how our democracy was hijacked Love the headline, I'll read it when I wake up.
Thomas Brooks
Sadly the whole goal was always just to have the word Russia trigger some weird negative reaction against trump by word association. And fuck me but when people say Russia in any context now I think Trump. And boy do I hate that because I'm a huge Trump supporter.
Thomas Long
>UMBRAGE There's no contradiction there. Technology appropriation is one of the key reasons why espionage is carried out. Forging "fingerprints" is also nothing new. That's used by any intelligence service with counter-intelligence capabilities. It's definitely used by China and Russia as well.
>does "conflict of interest" not mean anything to you? I'm familiar with theories on "CIA/FBI did it". Who else would you suggest carry out these kinds of investigations, if not the intelligence community? Every damn branch has been involved in this investigation, and I don't know if you've ever been involved in your Armed Forces but it's really not like they're all democrats.
>They don't even make accusations.
Yes, they do. See 'Key Judgements' on p ii: >We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.
More on that in that entire section.
>I'm capable of killing somebody that doesn't make me a murderer.
Indeed. But that analogy doesn't apply here. In this instance, a person with the intention and capability to murder someone - and attempts at this were documented in many ways - and later that someone died.
Isaiah Barnes
They also have been getting their asses handed to them by Chinese intelligence.
Jaxon Edwards
got an example? I'm curious
Alexander Morgan
checked
Oliver Peterson
First mistake you made was mentioning Wikipedia as the original source.
LIBERAL LOGIC FAIL
William Clark
> And fuck me but when people say Russia in any context now I think Trump. It just reminds me I made the right choice.
Zachary Butler
>no we didn't but it was there, I swear ok
Sebastian Watson
Also I hope we get the day to DESTROY Liberals once and for all. They are a cancer on the Earth with their mental disorders.
Trannies vs REAL MEN
Dylan Phillips
Is Russia or the EU more harmful to the US?
Evan Ortiz
>no we didn't but it was there Yes. That's what all of the gathered evidence suggests.
It's not like operations like that doesn't take place, and it wouldn't be the first time you had submarines in our waters.
Thomas Kelly
Listen dawg I know you got an agenda but we aren't buying the BS. They don't get to say "We did not make an assessment of the impact that Russian activities had on the outcome of the 2016 election." and get to say "We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments." since that is an assessment of impact on the election. That is talking out one's ass.
>Indeed. But that analogy doesn't apply here. In this instance, a person with the intention and capability to murder someone - and attempts at this were documented in many ways - and later that someone died. The analogy is fine. Russia is capable, Russia has motive. No evidence of a hack produced but we are supposed to accept it as truth. Fuck that frame up.
Alexander Ross
>Trannies vs A REAL MAN
Real Man would still win. Trannies would just trip over each other and die of STDs
John Ortiz
>I know you got an agenda
If you can't go past that unfounded assumption for the sake of discussion, then I can't help you.
I would love to get past assumption but we aren't being given evidence. Just the word of 3 agencies that have been spying on us and blowing smoke up our ass.
Benjamin Turner
wtf I hate trump now
Wyatt Williams
>dawg
kys now. don't wait. do it right now by any means possible.
Jacob Reyes
>341 sources Can't tell if you're being sarcastic or if you're really stupid enough to believe those 341 quote sources for that article are all pieces of evidence about Russian collusion.
Even the first line is bullshit. Only 4 of the 17 US agencies agreed with the assessment that Russia interfered. The rest told them they were full of shit.
Christopher Thomas
Whenever people say pedophile I think podesta
Jayden Lee
>What sources would you accept? When 13 of the 17 departments of the US Intelligence community REFUSE to sign off on the evidence-free claim that Russia interfered, that tells me pretty much everything I need to know.
Jackson Gray
341 sources that end up being conspiracies without actual evidence.
Ryan Price
>The rest told them they were full of shit. Source?
Ethan Jackson
Anti-establishment is real, but your point is also true.
Dominic Turner
I am the person attempting to reason with demoralized and inoculated people. That is the retarded part.
Also, that's not what he was referring to. I take it you haven't read his books.
Hudson Bennett
KGB tactics were leftwing politics forced onto everyone to destroy us
Liam Cooper
...
David Brooks
>I wonder why it is that traditional mainstream media are portrayed as evil, why other alternative news outlets are praised for being bringers of truth? Because the mainstream media is utter shite. Anyone who's ever watched the News and compared it to articles online can see the difference pretty clearly.
Just because Russian intelligence has the ability to co-opt alternative narratives for their own purposes doesn't mean that that the mainstream media isn't incompetent. If anything, it proves it.
Jacob Brown
>There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee’s system on July 5 last year—not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak—a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system. This casts serious doubt on the initial “hack,” as alleged, that led to the very consequential publication of a large store of documents on WikiLeaks last summer.
>Forensic investigations of documents made public two weeks prior to the July 5 leak by the person or entity known as Guccifer 2.0 show that they were fraudulent: Before Guccifer posted them they were adulterated by cutting and pasting them into a blank template that had Russian as its default language. Guccifer took responsibility on June 15 for an intrusion the DNC reported on June 14 and professed to be a WikiLeaks source—claims essential to the official narrative implicating Russia in what was soon cast as an extensive hacking operation. To put the point simply, forensic science now devastates this narrative.
>Forensicator’s first decisive findings, made public in the paper dated July 9, concerned the volume of the supposedly hacked material and what is called the transfer rate—the time a remote hack would require. The metadata established several facts in this regard with granular precision: On the evening of July 5, 2016, 1,976 megabytes of data were downloaded from the DNC’s server. The operation took 87 seconds. This yields a transfer rate of 22.7 megabytes per second.
>“A speed of 22.7 megabytes is simply unobtainable, especially if we are talking about a transoceanic data transfer,” Folden said. “Based on the data we now have, what we’ve been calling a hack is impossible.”
>people who advocate for white pride aren't racist
Mason Perez
Man, fuck the kids. I know I do.
Christopher Perry
>not embracing racism for everyone as the completely normal thing it is this is only because women can vote, the men are weakened in political power and easier to defeat with conventional propaganda techniques
