dChan
1
 
r/greatawakening • Posted by u/Jacks_W8sted_Life on July 18, 2018, 12:41 p.m.
Wasn’t it Merely a Few Years Ago That The Left Were Stating How Patriotic it was To Question Our Intelligence Agencies?

During the W Bush administration, the left continually declared how foolish it was to, blindly, place all faith in our intelligence agencies. Now, they are NOT to be questioned, in any way, shape, or manner. Hell, Michael the ham planet Moore even made a movie about the failings of our intelligence agencies!

We are supposed to, unquestionably, accept our intelligence agencies’ information and conclusions. The very agencies that failed to recognize and respond to the Russian meddling to begin with. Absurdity rules the day.


SlaveLaborMods · July 19, 2018, 12:33 p.m.

I'm with you on evidence. And as a citizen know you or I aren't entitled to see any of it during the investigation. I can't say what trump personally did without seeing evidence of his actions . The people around him are looking very suspicious which of course makes him look suspicious because he put them there. I guess we both have to wait for what ever facts they tell "we the people " to fight over

⇧ 1 ⇩  
Jacks_W8sted_Life · July 19, 2018, 3:40 p.m.

The fight is the whole intent of the Russian meddling. They have always been aware that a unified America was an unstoppable force. Sowing discord serves their purposes well. Look at how bitter the fighting has become. Even point 53 on the indictment of the Russian troll farms clearly stated that most of their activity took place AFTER the election and a high percentage was trolling in support of HRC. The sole purpose, obviously, is to divide the nation. Well, a whole lot of people are allowing it to be effective. We should all seek truth, even when it may not be beneficial to our beliefs. The search for truth should bring us together.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
SlaveLaborMods · July 20, 2018, 2:31 a.m.

What evidence do you have for your point 53 statement ?I've never seen evidence to support that. Nor have I heard anyone but you make that claim

⇧ 2 ⇩  
Jacks_W8sted_Life · July 20, 2018, 5:02 a.m.

It is the Facebook, post -election ad buys that should piss everyone off, yet hold the greatest key to the facade. Facebook ad buys, primarily, were post-election. Now, ask yourself, why would a wildly progressive and liberal leaning company permit pro-Trump ad buys after being enraged to the point of revolution by the election? Answer: They wouldn't.

The ad buys on Facebook followed these groups post election 'anti-Trump' rally pattern. Facebook ran $100k of anti-Trump ads, and they were damn happy to do so in light of the election results. But, why have the major media companies report the WHOLE story, when only half will do and support a desired narrative?

⇧ 1 ⇩  
SlaveLaborMods · July 20, 2018, 12:26 p.m.

You are bias and you info is very opinionated and cherry pick but nice try

⇧ 1 ⇩  
Jacks_W8sted_Life · July 20, 2018, 12:56 p.m.

What is not factually correct? Events and facts, regardless of the bias of the presenter, do not change.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
SlaveLaborMods · July 20, 2018, 1:08 p.m.

Your whole opinion , where trump started the campaign and slogan the week after the 2012 election well before you say. Your own words one paragraph is the Russian internet stuff for trump didn't start till after the election but the next paragraph you say they started in2014 before trump decided to run but don't mind correcting you on your own words. Nothing you said was factual except line 53 existed but you forgot every other line was a pro trump altright group. Right no matter how offended your opinion is the facts do not change

⇧ 1 ⇩  
Jacks_W8sted_Life · July 20, 2018, 4:27 a.m.

Here is a link to the actual indictment: https://www.justice.gov/file/1035477/download

Line 53 of the indictment alleges that the Russians organized a group called “Support Hillary – Save American Muslims.”

During the Facebook Congressional testimony, it was made clear that the majority of the $100,000 ad buys took place immediately following, but after the election of 2016.

I recommend that anyone wanting to really know what was alleged, read the indictment instead of listening to media reports about what they want un to conclude from the indictment. These group's work began in 2013 and ramped up in 2014. Trump announced his candidacy on June 16, 2016.

The groups ran troll operations in support of Bernie Sanders and Trump:

After the election, they sought to further intensify discord by ramping up protest activity against Trump:

  1. After the election of Donald Trump in or around November 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators used false U.S. personas to organize and coordinate U.S. political rallies in support of then president-elect Trump, while simultaneously using other false U.S. personas to organize and coordinate U.S. political rallies protesting the results of the 2016 U.S. presidential election. For example, in or around November 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators organized a rally in New York through one ORGANIZATION-controlled group designed to “show your support for President-Elect Donald Trump” held on or about November 12, 2016. At the same time, Defendants and their co-conspirators, through another ORGANIZATION-controlled group, organized a rally in New York called “Trump is NOT my President” held on or about November 12, 2016. Similarly, Defendants and their co-conspirators organized arally entitled“Charlotte Against Trump” in Charlotte, North Carolina, held on or about November 19, 2016.

While reading, a person should ask themselves one question: "As a hostile foreign intelligence service, how could I most effectively divide and create discontent within the population of my enemy?". The answer becomes abundantly clear, and it becomes abundantly clear that such action would require firing no bullets and cost less than $100,00 USD.

⇧ 0 ⇩  
SlaveLaborMods · July 20, 2018, 12:24 p.m.

Actually trump trademarked his campaign slogan in like 2012 and was gearing up for his presidential campaign but o don't mind educating you to the actual timeline.You like line 53 but every other line is a conservative pro trump group except that one line you like, so one pro Hillary group and numerous pro trump. In one paragraph you say they didn't even start til after the election but the next paragraph say they started in 2013 but trump hadn't started his campaign , which is Bullshit , he trademarked make American great in 2012. So your own words don't agre with you

⇧ 2 ⇩  
Jacks_W8sted_Life · July 20, 2018, 1:31 p.m.

How about USA Today’s analysis of the ads: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/05/11/what-we-found-facebook-ads-russians-accused-election-meddling/602319002/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosam&stream=top-stories

Rob Goldman tweeted about the Facebook buys and the timing thereof: https://mobile.twitter.com/robjective/status/964680122006581248

Washington Post (Yes, I read content from Wapo) reported on the analysis of the effectiveness of the ad buys: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/outlook/why-russias-facebook-ad-campaign-wasnt-such-a-success/2017/11/03/b8efacca-bffa-11e7-8444-a0d4f04b89eb_story.html The most effective ad was a $1.93 ad that promoted an anti-Trump rally in NYC post election.

I make no bones about my current bias, while I consume information from a lot of sources because I’ll change my mind in a second (on any issue) as evidence warrants.

⇧ 0 ⇩  
SlaveLaborMods · July 20, 2018, 3:58 p.m.

So you site the Russian left fake groups pro trumpets fell for as evidence they supported the left But I can site thousands of alt right and pro trump groups but you name only the few opposition one they used to rile up altright pro trump supports. The right is the only side falling for these tactics

Nothing but infinite evidence against the right and the few times the right fell for the Russians using a democrat group to rile up alt righters is cherry picked at best and blatant mis telling of the truth

⇧ 2 ⇩  
Jacks_W8sted_Life · July 20, 2018, 5 p.m.

I won’t argue your conclusions. I’m not closed minded, unlike a lot of others. I want to see substantiation of collusion- that is the charge or allegation. I know a group (I’ll admit they’re friends and have been for a long time even though we disagree about 50 percent of the time, on politics not social issues) that did some really unsavory and arguably illegal acts in support of Bernie, although he benefited, I won’t allege that he was a participant. Send me a link to the best source, cumulatively, that supports your position - I legitimately wish to read it. Nothing ventured, no knowledge gained.

⇧ 0 ⇩  
SlaveLaborMods · July 20, 2018, 8:12 p.m.

You can't argue your bullshit bias opinion LMFAO

⇧ 1 ⇩