I'm still waiting for an explanation of how buying ads on Facebook is compromising national security.
-
-
-
I'd like to know why FB was "the wave of future campaigns in 2012" when Obama was using it, but it was suddenly high treason in 2016 (and no one has ever really explained what the treason was).
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
It's 2018. Facts no longer matter, only narratives.
-
To mis-quote 'A Few Good Men' it seems that "(we) can't handle the truth". :/
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
How about a congressional study to find out who influenced the election more - Russia or the social media companies? And how much each received by the parties.
-
How about a congressional study on democrats rigging the primaries for Clinton? Shouldn't they AT LEAST be cut off from public funds? They want to rig it, they should pay for it. As things stand, primaries are nothing more than free advertising for their preselected candidate.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Easy. Trump won by only 78K votes spread across 3 states. Doesn't take much to convince voters to stay home, vote 3rd party or cross from Repub to Dem.
-
Or Hillary Clinton ignoring the rust belt for six months maybe just maybe have something to do with it

- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
The propaganda about Russian propaganda alone was several magnitudes bigger than the tiny IRA spam business.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It’s not supposed to make sense. It’s just supposed to play a movie of Trump as a traitor.
-
The Russia propaganda narrative has always been a red herring. Not only are there mountains of propaganda every election cycle, but voters weigh a multitude of factors (personal, familial, social, emotional, rational, etc.) in the voting decision, not a ridiculous meme or two.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Notice that no example of the mesmerizing vote changing social media is ever presented. How those posts just changed votes in PA, MI, WI, and OH where Killery lost and not in all the other states where she won as expected is also a mystery that never gets addressed.
-
Notice also those 4 million+ Gary Johnson voters that made it so she won 5 states over Trump are never mention. Maybe they were immune?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Also, if that minuscule level of effort somehow compromised the US election, then every subsequent and prior election is now cast in doubt and can be presumed illegitimate... is that really a stable epistemic model?
-
This doesn't follow at least with respect to every prior election. Social media in its current form including amplification leverage did not exist.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
One of the insidious side effects of the Russiagate narrative is to subtly legitimize the billions of dollars worth of propaganda shoved down our throats every election cycle. The unspoken message is that meddling in elections by oligarchs is fine as long as they aren't Russian.
-
Exactly! If they're Saudi or Israeli oligarchs, bring em on!
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
If you think it hasn't been explained then you are not listening.
-
We're listening. The difference is we're also looking at what's been presented as evidence and have found it wanting. That part is what's known as critical thinking.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
-
You are correct sir. Yes!
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.