Is Russia engaged in a disinformation campaign against the United States?

[PhilFish]

Steel made up everything

Made up nonsense is not valid

That's why it's so entertaining. on the one hand you have the blathering crowd telling us that Russia is waging a disinformation campaign, yet the majority of what we are experiencing was predicated on the Steele dossier which if you acknowledge the first, has to be disinformation as well, no?

 

[Winston]

That's why it's so entertaining. on the one hand you have the blathering crowd telling us that Russia is waging a disinformation campaign, yet the majority of what we are experiencing was predicated on the Steele dossier which if you acknowledge the first, has to be disinformation as well, no?

The Russians have been doing this forever. You even said, so the steel docs could have been written every year for 50 years. In other words the assertation that this began to help Trump is nonsense and you already agreed to this

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

That's why it's so entertaining. on the one hand you have the blathering crowd telling us that Russia is waging a disinformation campaign, yet the majority of what we are experiencing was predicated on the Steele dossier which if you acknowledge the first, has to be disinformation as well, no?

Disinformation? The Steele dossier has been largely corroborated.

Example:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/trump-russia-dossier-true-proven-929839?amp=1

 

[middleview]

Steel made up everything

Made up nonsense is not valid

Really? So when Steele reported that Carter Page met with the Russian Deputy Prime Minister he made it up?

 

[Winston]

Really? So when Steele reported that Carter Page met with the Russian Deputy Prime Minister he made it up?

Dude Carter Paige was working with the cia. This is why no one on cnn mentions his name anymore

Edited

 

[middleview]

Dude Carter Paige was working with the cia. This is why no one on cnn mentions his name anymore

Edited

Carter Page....not Paige....dude.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Carter Page....not Paige....dude.

We know Page held himself out as an adviser to the Kremlin. And we know that Trump named him as one of his five foreign policy advisers. Wingers say he was also a CIA asset. Double agent? Triple agent? Who knows. We only know how loopy he is.

 

[LeilaniMP]

...

Absolutely

 

[Willy Bertoia]

We know Page held himself out as an adviser to the Kremlin. And we know that Trump named him as one of his five foreign policy advisers. Wingers say he was also a CIA asset. Double agent? Triple agent? Who knows. We only know how loopy he is.

Carter Page never met the President, dummy.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Carter Page never met the President, dummy.

I didn’t say they met. That didn’t stop your grossly ignorant cult leader from naming Page as one of his five foreign policy advisers.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Link, liar? (a tribute to the long-departed and one of my favorite wingmen, I-Man)

Facts you don’t learn within your right wing echo chamber...

“March 21, 2016: Trump meets with the editorial board of the Washington Post. Asked about his foreign policy team, he names, among others, Page and George Papadopoulos, who later pleads guilty to lying to the FBI about contacts he had with the Russian government during the 2016 presidential campaign.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/time.com/5128614/carter-page-gop-memo-fisa-warrant/?amp=true

I will graciously accept your apology.

;-)

 

[Winston]

Carter Page....not Paige....dude.

Anyway you spell it he was working for the cia

 

[PhilFish]

Disinformation? The Steele dossier has been largely corroborated.

Example:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/trump-russia-dossier-true-proven-929839?amp=1

Yes. Those items are well understood

 

[Winston]

Yes. Those items are well understood

Trump will never be impeached based on that nonsense

You need to watch fox news fool

 

[middleview]

Anyway you spell it he was working for the cia

Bullshit. Just another Trump conspiracy theory. Did Putin feed that to Trump along with the bizarre plot by Ukraine to help Hillary win?

 

[middleview]

Carter Page never met the President, dummy.

He was named a foreign policy advisor by Trump....aka President Dummy.

 

[middleview]

Carter Page never met the President, dummy.

Page reportedly previously told congressional investigators that he never met the president. Both assertions seem to run counter to comments Page made during a December 2016 public appearance in Moscow broadcast live by the Russian network RT.


"I've certainly been in a number of meetings with him and I’ve learned a tremendous amount from him," Page said at the time. "In terms of actual briefings, you know, that’s not something I like to talk about."

 

[Raoul_Luke]

WTF are you talking about? The election was in 2012 and the first quarter was 3%, second was 1.7% and sequestration cut govt spending 10% and dropped GDP to .5% in the third and fourth....

There are two models I know of that employed multiple economic indices and no approval ratings: Bob Erikson and Chris Wlezien's leading economic indicator model and Nate Silver's economic index. Erikson and Wlezien's model simply takes into account continued quarter growth for elections since 1952, and uses the 10 leading economic variables (which are shown to be representative of overall strength in the economy), with quarters closer to the election weighted more heavily. Silver's model takes into account rolling averages of a month to a year of seven economic variables, which range from personal income growth to forecasted GDP to the stock market for elections since 1968.

The results of these models were remarkably similar: small Obama victories. Erikson and Wlezien, who authored the great book The Timeline of Presidential Elections: How Campaigns Do (and Do Not) Matter, actually overshot Obama's 3.9pt win by about a point, calling for a 5pt Obama victory. Silver's model slightly undershot it by having Obama take the election by about 3pt. The average of their results equals a 4pt Obama victory, or for Romney to hit the infamous 47%, which is pretty much where the numbers fell.

The average of the two most thorough economic models nailed the election results. This clearly indicates that given the economy, Obama should have won in 2012. A one or seven point victory would still indicate that 2012 was mostly about the economy – precision is more luck than anything else.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/18/mitt-romney-lost-election-because-of-economy

Nominal GDP popped to 5% in late 2011, which was still being reported (and adjusted) into mid-2012.



And that kept it above 4% on a YoY basis for the first half of 2012. And if you will recall, the MSM was uniform in their propaganda efforts, reporting Q4 was (typically) when all the growth was being captured so we should expect another big print just as the election was occurring (frankly, I think you were one of the cheerleaders pushing that nonsense). They weren't so diligent in their reporting of dissident predictions that it likely would not (which, of course, it didn't).

You are arguing against math. But then, what else is new?

 

[Raoul_Luke]

look at the charts I cited.

Obama Inherited a nose diving economy, turned it around, conditions were hardly dismal.

Facts matter.

The charts you "cited" don't say what you think they say...

 

[FakeName]

The charts you "cited" don't say what you think they say...

Of course they do.

They show the facts clearly.