In this episode Butters has a team to spread fake stories on Facebook, at the end his father punishes him by dragging him to Moscow to meet Putin to put them side by side. Even though there are no evidence of any such thing by Russia, just conspiracy theories.
shareUh...no...Russia bought Facebook ads
shareYes, but they're implying that was to spread "fake news" echoing all these bullshit conspiracy theories.
shareDefine fake news...
shareNews the publishers knows are fake (or in best case: little information surrounding it) but still publishes it in spite of that presenting it as the truth.
shareSo Russia meddling in our elections is fake news?
shareAbsolutely
shareAnd once again...define fake news...your original answer was basically news that is fake. Are you saying the news is disingenuous?that Russia has not meddled in u.s. Elections?
shareYes. It's been over a year now with no shred of evidence despite numerous investigations and congress hearings, only complete nonsense guesswork. If it wasn't for the fact that 95% of the mainstream media is vehemently anti Trump, they would have stopped reporting a long time ago about this. You can tell they're really grasping at straws and have been for a long time with all their latest "bombshells".
shareSo...what about the CIA,FBI,NSA and ODNI reports that all conclude Russian involvment? Surely you are not implying our intelegence agencies are in colusion with...95%???...of the mainstream media? And considering FOX news has also reported Russian involvement, what mainstream media has reported otherwise? And if in fact 100% has reported the same story...might that not go along way towards confirming its authenticity? Finally...why have you gone to such great lengths to defend the alleged misdeeds of Russia? Why is it so hard to reconcile the notion that they would operate in such a clandestine manner?
shareNo, those aren't reports from those organisations; they are reports from a select few people working in those organizations. There never was an official verdict representing the entire organizations stating this. Also "Russian involvement" is a deliberately vague for a reason. Because again, that doesn't mean what you might think it means. All this bullshit about working with Wikileaks, Trump, etc...
shareNo..they are official statements...the select few you mention just happen to be the directors of the agencies on record. Once again...I believe you forgot to address my question regarding your defense of Russia...why do you go to such lengths to defend them when it is so obvious they were complicit in wrong doings?
shareNo they weren't. Comey after he was fired even said that Trump was not under investigation.
And yes, it is so obvious Russia were complicit in wrongdoings. So obvious that none of the 100+ people claiming it have any definitive proof...
No one has mentioned trump until you did just now...we are discussing Russian meddling...NOT trump collusion...they are different accusations...you do realize that,right? Maybe you do not...that might account for your confusion...
shareAnd what are the evidence of their so-called meddling? That they bought a couple ads on Facebook? Give me a break.
shareThe word collusion is also deliberately vague. Whatever alleged involvement Trump may have had, even liberal constitutional lawyer Alan Dershowitz says there is no crime here unless Trump himself organized the hack and instructed the Russian government to leak it, which is a huge stretch given how Trumps behavior indicates that he is not that big on planning.
There is also no proof that the information was hacked. There is a group of ex-intelligence officials who say that given the surveillance state we live in that its far more likely that the Podesta emails came from an internal leak.
And then there is the other thing no one seems to talk about. For all of the self righteous indignant protestations about election interference, no one talks about what that interference is, which is the substance of the Podesta emails, which no one refutes as being untrue. So really...everyone is upset that the American people learned the truth about HRC and the DNC. And that truth is that they are a bunch of scumbags.
The Podesta emails prove that the DNC thinks that their own base are a bunch of chumps. And people like Deliciousfeet and so many others who probably never read those emails are proving them right.
Word. Not to mention that Podesta's password was 'password'. You sure needed an hacking team to break through that one...
shareReading comprehension, vocabulary,and grammar are hard for you...I understand...once again...CIA,FBI,NSA,andODNI
have all concluded,beyond any doubt that Russia interfered in the 2016 election...even FOX news admits it...only fringe outlets like Brietbart and Alex jones even question elements of it and that is when trumpanzee enters the discussion...and now that Bannon is on the warpath even Brietbart is becoming hostile towards the commander and chump where Russia is involved.
Wow you sure show you are an unbiased source with that kind of wording. Please provide evidence towards how those organizations have concluded that?
shareDon't be so ignorant.
shareYes, Russia bought political ads but we don't know if they targeted parties or just issues.
https://www.recode.net/2017/10/12/16464120/sheryl-sandberg-facebook-russia-election-axios
Since we don't have any of the Facebook ads, any claims they influence the election are just conspiracy theories.
The Lying MSM keeps harping about Trump and the Ruskies. No evidence, just "anonymous sources".
OTOH, we know the Ruskies did NOT hack the DNC. From my Trump post two months ago.
A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack
Former NSA experts say it wasn’t a hack at all, but a leak—an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system.
https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/
We come now to a moment of great gravity.
There has been a long effort to counter the official narrative we now call “Russiagate.” This effort has so far focused on the key events noted above, leaving numerous others still to be addressed. Until recently, researchers undertaking this work faced critical shortcomings, and these are to be explained. But they have achieved significant new momentum in the past several weeks, and what they have done now yields very consequential fruit. Forensic investigators, intelligence analysts, system designers, program architects, and computer scientists of long experience and strongly credentialed are now producing evidence disproving the official version of key events last year. Their work is intricate and continues at a kinetic pace as we speak. But its certain results so far are two, simply stated, and freighted with implications:
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.