Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Massive organisations are not 100% infallible. Fucking hell, how shocking." You mean the staff at CNN are so dumb and incompetent that they can't even read a date on an email properly. Then when it's pointed out to them they refuse to make a full retraction of the story. That is what i find shocking. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So there is a story about Russian interference in US civic society (media, elections, politics, social media etc.), the media are deliberately fed a false story about Russian interference, then that mistake is then reported on state sponsored Russian media (your link). You don't think it could have been the Russians who fed them the fake story do you? " What an utterly ridiculous post. The correct date was on the email all along, CNN were never fed any false information. Why can the Washington Post spot the correct date on the email and yet CNN, MSNBC and CBS news can't? (unless they have an ulterior motive and political agenda to damage Donald Trump). The link i posted to RT news was just reporting on CNN's handling of the whole affair after it had happened. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Massive organisations are not 100% infallible. Fucking hell, how shocking. You mean the staff at CNN are so dumb and incompetent that they can't even read a date on an email properly. Then when it's pointed out to them they refuse to make a full retraction of the story. That is what i find shocking. " Why would they? Even your own overwrought accusations point out that only the date is wrong. Why retract the whole thing, beyond appeasing the kind of people who screech ineffectually about "fake news!" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Massive organisations are not 100% infallible. Fucking hell, how shocking. You mean the staff at CNN are so dumb and incompetent that they can't even read a date on an email properly. Then when it's pointed out to them they refuse to make a full retraction of the story. That is what i find shocking. " funny how your not shocked when people on here constantly show that the falsehoods you spout from the likes of rt and breitbart etc are just lies.. more double standards ..  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So yet more examples of fake news have come out from the likes of CNN, MSNBC and CBS news over the weekend. CNN ran a story on an email from someone called Michael J Erickson which they said had given Donald Trump access to Wikileaks documents during the US Presidential election, before those Wikileaks documents had gone public. They thought this would be the smoking gun evidence that would finally link Donald Trump to Russia and make him guilty of Russian collusion because the CIA sees Wikileaks as an arm of the Kremlin. MSNBC and CBS news quickly followed on the heels of CNN and ran with the same story. Only one key thing about the story was incorrect, they got the DATE on the email wrong!!!! The whole story was based around the dates being correct, as they said the email showed Trump had been given advance access to Wikileaks documents about Hillary Clinton. The actual real date on the email showed the email was sent after the Wikileaks documents had gone public. The email was sent on 14th September 2016 and not the 4th September 2016 as CNN claimed. When the Washington Post pointed out the story was false as the dates were wrong, CNN had to make a humiliating correction to the story and said they got the dates wrong, quickly followed again by MSNBC and CBS who also admitted they got it wrong, although they refused to make a full retraction of the story. Independent investigative news reporters like Mark Dice have over 100 examples of fake news from CNN in the last year alone, such as a CNN contributor running a story from a PARODY Reuters twitter account, obviously without realising it was a PARODY Reuters twitter account and thinking the story was real. This really is Comical Ali level news reporting from the likes of CNN, MSNBC and CBS, well deserving of their new Fake news badges. www.rt.com/usa/412538-cnn-wikileaks-trump-report-dud/ " Am I the only one to notice the irony in your post? The main purveyor of fake news on this forum starts whining about fake news. You couldnt make this up (well you could....) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So there is a story about Russian interference in US civic society (media, elections, politics, social media etc.), the media are deliberately fed a false story about Russian interference, then that mistake is then reported on state sponsored Russian media (your link). You don't think it could have been the Russians who fed them the fake story do you? What an utterly ridiculous post. The correct date was on the email all along, CNN were never fed any false information. Why can the Washington Post spot the correct date on the email and yet CNN, MSNBC and CBS news can't? (unless they have an ulterior motive and political agenda to damage Donald Trump). The link i posted to RT news was just reporting on CNN's handling of the whole affair after it had happened. " You are happy to be used as a mouth piece by the Russians to try to undermine democracy in the West. After all they helped you with Brexit, so I guess you owe them one, right? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So yet more examples of fake news have come out from the likes of CNN, MSNBC and CBS news over the weekend. CNN ran a story on an email from someone called Michael J Erickson which they said had given Donald Trump access to Wikileaks documents during the US Presidential election, before those Wikileaks documents had gone public. They thought this would be the smoking gun evidence that would finally link Donald Trump to Russia and make him guilty of Russian collusion because the CIA sees Wikileaks as an arm of the Kremlin. MSNBC and CBS news quickly followed on the heels of CNN and ran with the same story. Only one key thing about the story was incorrect, they got the DATE on the email wrong!!!! The whole story was based around the dates being correct, as they said the email showed Trump had been given advance access to Wikileaks documents about Hillary Clinton. The actual real date on the email showed the email was sent after the Wikileaks documents had gone public. The email was sent on 14th September 2016 and not the 4th September 2016 as CNN claimed. When the Washington Post pointed out the story was false as the dates were wrong, CNN had to make a humiliating correction to the story and said they got the dates wrong, quickly followed again by MSNBC and CBS who also admitted they got it wrong, although they refused to make a full retraction of the story. Independent investigative news reporters like Mark Dice have over 100 examples of fake news from CNN in the last year alone, such as a CNN contributor running a story from a PARODY Reuters twitter account, obviously without realising it was a PARODY Reuters twitter account and thinking the story was real. This really is Comical Ali level news reporting from the likes of CNN, MSNBC and CBS, well deserving of their new Fake news badges. www.rt.com/usa/412538-cnn-wikileaks-trump-report-dud/ Am I the only one to notice the irony in your post? The main purveyor of fake news on this forum starts whining about fake news. You couldnt make this up (well you could....)" From a Russian website, on a story about Russian interference in US civic society! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"CNN made a mistake, acknowledged it, and corrected their story. We can of course all compare and contrast this with the way Trump conducts himself when he's wrong. " this......... and for all the time trump and his administration cry "fake news" 99% of the time, the network or the newspaper have gotten it spot on!!!! truth is centaur, and you are going to hate this, they get it right waaaaaaay more than they get it wrong! and when they do they hold their hands up and fess up! i have yet to hear the trump administration hold up their hands when they get it wrong.... in fact they normally double down on the "falsehood"....... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"CNN made a mistake, acknowledged it, and corrected their story. We can of course all compare and contrast this with the way Trump conducts himself when he's wrong. this......... and for all the time trump and his administration cry "fake news" 99% of the time, the network or the newspaper have gotten it spot on!!!! truth is centaur, and you are going to hate this, they get it right waaaaaaay more than they get it wrong! and when they do they hold their hands up and fess up! i have yet to hear the trump administration hold up their hands when they get it wrong.... in fact they normally double down on the "falsehood"....... "Indeed. It is a very worry precedent that Trump is setting in calling anything he doesn't like or agree with, or anything with a mistake in as 'Fake news'. It is basically furthering the cause of distrust of the media, and furthering the cause of the Trump administration to pull the wool over people's eyes. A newspaper publishing a story based on getting the date wrong: that is sloppy journalism. That is bad. But that is not 'Fake news'. Fake news is the deliberate act of publishing falsehoods or just making shit up and calling it news. Breitbart were one of the forerunners in this when they were publishing made up stories about churches being set alight in Germany. Trump can stand there and say "my inauguration crowd was the biggest" despite there being photographic proof it wasn't. Despite things like metro ticket sales suggesting it wasn't. Sarah Sanders can tweet "Can't make it up: Obama now wants credit for the booming Trump economy. At least we can all agree the economy is better under President Trump.". But yes, Sarah, you CAN make it up. It is exactly what you are doing. Pretty much by every measure (apart from tax breaks for the rich) the US economy is declining. Trump can stand there and say "I'm bringing jobs back" when the numbers tell the complete opposite. But the more he lies, the more he repeats these falsehoods then the more people believe him. Just like his 'crooked Hilary' line. If he repeats it enough then people believe it, and think Trump is the good guy. Was Hilary crooked? I don't know. I know she has had numerous investigations and none have found anything. Yet, how many times has Trump and his associates been convicted of fraud and money laundering? Trump supporters can stand there whining about 'her emails', then Trump and his sons have all been doing exactly the same thing! -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Massive organisations are not 100% infallible. Fucking hell, how shocking. You mean the staff at CNN are so dumb and incompetent that they can't even read a date on an email properly. Then when it's pointed out to them they refuse to make a full retraction of the story. That is what i find shocking. Why would they? Even your own overwrought accusations point out that only the date is wrong. Why retract the whole thing, beyond appeasing the kind of people who screech ineffectually about "fake news!"" To be fair to the OP (and maybe I’m not always). The DATE is the entire story. They were trying to say Trump had the info BEFORE it was made public (eg he had it on 4th) to try and show collusion. By the 14 th it was in the public domain so totally irrelevant. Getting the date wrong is the CRUX of the whole matter. I’m sick of the whole “fake news” crap...but CNN have been pretty poor at checking sources lately. Very shoddy journalism wether fake or not. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So there is a story about Russian interference in US civic society (media, elections, politics, social media etc.), the media are deliberately fed a false story about Russian interference, then that mistake is then reported on state sponsored Russian media (your link). You don't think it could have been the Russians who fed them the fake story do you? What an utterly ridiculous post. The correct date was on the email all along, CNN were never fed any false information. Why can the Washington Post spot the correct date on the email and yet CNN, MSNBC and CBS news can't? (unless they have an ulterior motive and political agenda to damage Donald Trump). The link i posted to RT news was just reporting on CNN's handling of the whole affair after it had happened. You are happy to be used as a mouth piece by the Russians to try to undermine democracy in the West. After all they helped you with Brexit, so I guess you owe them one, right? " What evidence do you have for that? Only Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of MI6 said on BBC Newsnight tonight that he hasn't seen any evidence to suggest that the Russians interfered in the Uk's EU Referendum in any real significant way. Also UK officials asked Facebook in October to look into the possibility of Russian interference in the EU referendum in the UK and earlier today Facebook published their findings. Facebook said they found hardly any Russian interference in the EU referendum through their website and could only find 3 Russian purchased Facebook ads (which cost less than a dollar) ahead of the Brexit referendum in June 2016 which more Americans were exposed to than Brits. Facebook said they think only around 200 Brits were exposed to the 3 Russian purchased ads (which cost less than a dollar). Facebook said that by far the most anti EU material posted on Facebook during the EU referendum was homegrown material from here in the UK and also ads purchased here in the UK. So it really is true that Russia didn't interfere much in the EU referendum and it's UK citizens on the whole who dislike the EU and posted anti EU material on websites like Facebook. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So there is a story about Russian interference in US civic society (media, elections, politics, social media etc.), the media are deliberately fed a false story about Russian interference, then that mistake is then reported on state sponsored Russian media (your link). You don't think it could have been the Russians who fed them the fake story do you? What an utterly ridiculous post. The correct date was on the email all along, CNN were never fed any false information. Why can the Washington Post spot the correct date on the email and yet CNN, MSNBC and CBS news can't? (unless they have an ulterior motive and political agenda to damage Donald Trump). The link i posted to RT news was just reporting on CNN's handling of the whole affair after it had happened. You are happy to be used as a mouth piece by the Russians to try to undermine democracy in the West. After all they helped you with Brexit, so I guess you owe them one, right? What evidence do you have for that? Only Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of MI6 said on BBC Newsnight tonight that he hasn't seen any evidence to suggest that the Russians interfered in the Uk's EU Referendum in any real significant way. Also UK officials asked Facebook in October to look into the possibility of Russian interference in the EU referendum in the UK and earlier today Facebook published their findings. Facebook said they found hardly any Russian interference in the EU referendum through their website and could only find 3 Russian purchased Facebook ads (which cost less than a dollar) ahead of the Brexit referendum in June 2016 which more Americans were exposed to than Brits. Facebook said they think only around 200 Brits were exposed to the 3 Russian purchased ads (which cost less than a dollar). Facebook said that by far the most anti EU material posted on Facebook during the EU referendum was homegrown material from here in the UK and also ads purchased here in the UK. So it really is true that Russia didn't interfere much in the EU referendum and it's UK citizens on the whole who dislike the EU and posted anti EU material on websites like Facebook. " Is that a "no" to putting your cognitive bias then? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So there is a story about Russian interference in US civic society (media, elections, politics, social media etc.), the media are deliberately fed a false story about Russian interference, then that mistake is then reported on state sponsored Russian media (your link). You don't think it could have been the Russians who fed them the fake story do you? What an utterly ridiculous post. The correct date was on the email all along, CNN were never fed any false information. Why can the Washington Post spot the correct date on the email and yet CNN, MSNBC and CBS news can't? (unless they have an ulterior motive and political agenda to damage Donald Trump). The link i posted to RT news was just reporting on CNN's handling of the whole affair after it had happened. You are happy to be used as a mouth piece by the Russians to try to undermine democracy in the West. After all they helped you with Brexit, so I guess you owe them one, right? What evidence do you have for that? Only Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of MI6 said on BBC Newsnight tonight that he hasn't seen any evidence to suggest that the Russians interfered in the Uk's EU Referendum in any real significant way. Also UK officials asked Facebook in October to look into the possibility of Russian interference in the EU referendum in the UK and earlier today Facebook published their findings. Facebook said they found hardly any Russian interference in the EU referendum through their website and could only find 3 Russian purchased Facebook ads (which cost less than a dollar) ahead of the Brexit referendum in June 2016 which more Americans were exposed to than Brits. Facebook said they think only around 200 Brits were exposed to the 3 Russian purchased ads (which cost less than a dollar). Facebook said that by far the most anti EU material posted on Facebook during the EU referendum was homegrown material from here in the UK and also ads purchased here in the UK. So it really is true that Russia didn't interfere much in the EU referendum and it's UK citizens on the whole who dislike the EU and posted anti EU material on websites like Facebook. " Just for fun after two minutes work: Collins, the MP leading parliament's fake news inquiry, criticised Facebook's efforts. "Facebook responded only with regards to funded advertisements to audiences in the UK from the around 470 accounts and pages run by the Russian based Internet Research Agency, which had been active during the US Presidential election," he said in a statement. “It would appear that no work has been done by Facebook to look for Russian activity around the EU referendum, other than from funded advertisements from those accounts that had already been identified as part of the US Senate's investigation. No work has been done by Facebook to look for other fake accounts and pages that could be linked to Russian backed agencies and which were active during the EU referendum, as I requested." There may well have been no Russian interference at all. What possible reason could they have for destabilising the EU? It's not as if they have been imposing sanctions against Russia or anything. However, what you have posted is only a part of the story. It does not conclude anything really does it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So there is a story about Russian interference in US civic society (media, elections, politics, social media etc.), the media are deliberately fed a false story about Russian interference, then that mistake is then reported on state sponsored Russian media (your link). You don't think it could have been the Russians who fed them the fake story do you? What an utterly ridiculous post. The correct date was on the email all along, CNN were never fed any false information. Why can the Washington Post spot the correct date on the email and yet CNN, MSNBC and CBS news can't? (unless they have an ulterior motive and political agenda to damage Donald Trump). The link i posted to RT news was just reporting on CNN's handling of the whole affair after it had happened. You are happy to be used as a mouth piece by the Russians to try to undermine democracy in the West. After all they helped you with Brexit, so I guess you owe them one, right? What evidence do you have for that? Only Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of MI6 said on BBC Newsnight tonight that he hasn't seen any evidence to suggest that the Russians interfered in the Uk's EU Referendum in any real significant way. Also UK officials asked Facebook in October to look into the possibility of Russian interference in the EU referendum in the UK and earlier today Facebook published their findings. Facebook said they found hardly any Russian interference in the EU referendum through their website and could only find 3 Russian purchased Facebook ads (which cost less than a dollar) ahead of the Brexit referendum in June 2016 which more Americans were exposed to than Brits. Facebook said they think only around 200 Brits were exposed to the 3 Russian purchased ads (which cost less than a dollar). Facebook said that by far the most anti EU material posted on Facebook during the EU referendum was homegrown material from here in the UK and also ads purchased here in the UK. So it really is true that Russia didn't interfere much in the EU referendum and it's UK citizens on the whole who dislike the EU and posted anti EU material on websites like Facebook. Just for fun after two minutes work: Collins, the MP leading parliament's fake news inquiry, criticised Facebook's efforts. "Facebook responded only with regards to funded advertisements to audiences in the UK from the around 470 accounts and pages run by the Russian based Internet Research Agency, which had been active during the US Presidential election," he said in a statement. “It would appear that no work has been done by Facebook to look for Russian activity around the EU referendum, other than from funded advertisements from those accounts that had already been identified as part of the US Senate's investigation. No work has been done by Facebook to look for other fake accounts and pages that could be linked to Russian backed agencies and which were active during the EU referendum, as I requested." There may well have been no Russian interference at all. What possible reason could they have for destabilising the EU? It's not as if they have been imposing sanctions against Russia or anything. However, what you have posted is only a part of the story. It does not conclude anything really does it?" Has Centaur just been humiliated again by being shown up posting Fake News again? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So there is a story about Russian interference in US civic society (media, elections, politics, social media etc.), the media are deliberately fed a false story about Russian interference, then that mistake is then reported on state sponsored Russian media (your link). You don't think it could have been the Russians who fed them the fake story do you? What an utterly ridiculous post. The correct date was on the email all along, CNN were never fed any false information. Why can the Washington Post spot the correct date on the email and yet CNN, MSNBC and CBS news can't? (unless they have an ulterior motive and political agenda to damage Donald Trump). The link i posted to RT news was just reporting on CNN's handling of the whole affair after it had happened. You are happy to be used as a mouth piece by the Russians to try to undermine democracy in the West. After all they helped you with Brexit, so I guess you owe them one, right? What evidence do you have for that? Only Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of MI6 said on BBC Newsnight tonight that he hasn't seen any evidence to suggest that the Russians interfered in the Uk's EU Referendum in any real significant way. Also UK officials asked Facebook in October to look into the possibility of Russian interference in the EU referendum in the UK and earlier today Facebook published their findings. Facebook said they found hardly any Russian interference in the EU referendum through their website and could only find 3 Russian purchased Facebook ads (which cost less than a dollar) ahead of the Brexit referendum in June 2016 which more Americans were exposed to than Brits. Facebook said they think only around 200 Brits were exposed to the 3 Russian purchased ads (which cost less than a dollar). Facebook said that by far the most anti EU material posted on Facebook during the EU referendum was homegrown material from here in the UK and also ads purchased here in the UK. So it really is true that Russia didn't interfere much in the EU referendum and it's UK citizens on the whole who dislike the EU and posted anti EU material on websites like Facebook. Just for fun after two minutes work: Collins, the MP leading parliament's fake news inquiry, criticised Facebook's efforts. "Facebook responded only with regards to funded advertisements to audiences in the UK from the around 470 accounts and pages run by the Russian based Internet Research Agency, which had been active during the US Presidential election," he said in a statement. “It would appear that no work has been done by Facebook to look for Russian activity around the EU referendum, other than from funded advertisements from those accounts that had already been identified as part of the US Senate's investigation. No work has been done by Facebook to look for other fake accounts and pages that could be linked to Russian backed agencies and which were active during the EU referendum, as I requested." There may well have been no Russian interference at all. What possible reason could they have for destabilising the EU? It's not as if they have been imposing sanctions against Russia or anything. However, what you have posted is only a part of the story. It does not conclude anything really does it?" And what of Sir Richard Dearlove's comments about it on BBC Newsnight last night? I noticed you ignored his comments. Don't you think if there was any real significant Russian interference he would know about it being the former head of MI6. Also on the issue of Facebook has it crossed your mind that Facebook didn't publish any findings of significant Russian interference because they couldn't find any and there was none to publish. Facebook were asked to look and they did, result is they didn't find any significant Russian interference through their website. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So there is a story about Russian interference in US civic society (media, elections, politics, social media etc.), the media are deliberately fed a false story about Russian interference, then that mistake is then reported on state sponsored Russian media (your link). You don't think it could have been the Russians who fed them the fake story do you? What an utterly ridiculous post. The correct date was on the email all along, CNN were never fed any false information. Why can the Washington Post spot the correct date on the email and yet CNN, MSNBC and CBS news can't? (unless they have an ulterior motive and political agenda to damage Donald Trump). The link i posted to RT news was just reporting on CNN's handling of the whole affair after it had happened. You are happy to be used as a mouth piece by the Russians to try to undermine democracy in the West. After all they helped you with Brexit, so I guess you owe them one, right? What evidence do you have for that? Only Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of MI6 said on BBC Newsnight tonight that he hasn't seen any evidence to suggest that the Russians interfered in the Uk's EU Referendum in any real significant way. Also UK officials asked Facebook in October to look into the possibility of Russian interference in the EU referendum in the UK and earlier today Facebook published their findings. Facebook said they found hardly any Russian interference in the EU referendum through their website and could only find 3 Russian purchased Facebook ads (which cost less than a dollar) ahead of the Brexit referendum in June 2016 which more Americans were exposed to than Brits. Facebook said they think only around 200 Brits were exposed to the 3 Russian purchased ads (which cost less than a dollar). Facebook said that by far the most anti EU material posted on Facebook during the EU referendum was homegrown material from here in the UK and also ads purchased here in the UK. So it really is true that Russia didn't interfere much in the EU referendum and it's UK citizens on the whole who dislike the EU and posted anti EU material on websites like Facebook. Just for fun after two minutes work: Collins, the MP leading parliament's fake news inquiry, criticised Facebook's efforts. "Facebook responded only with regards to funded advertisements to audiences in the UK from the around 470 accounts and pages run by the Russian based Internet Research Agency, which had been active during the US Presidential election," he said in a statement. “It would appear that no work has been done by Facebook to look for Russian activity around the EU referendum, other than from funded advertisements from those accounts that had already been identified as part of the US Senate's investigation. No work has been done by Facebook to look for other fake accounts and pages that could be linked to Russian backed agencies and which were active during the EU referendum, as I requested." There may well have been no Russian interference at all. What possible reason could they have for destabilising the EU? It's not as if they have been imposing sanctions against Russia or anything. However, what you have posted is only a part of the story. It does not conclude anything really does it? And what of Sir Richard Dearlove's comments about it on BBC Newsnight last night? I noticed you ignored his comments. Don't you think if there was any real significant Russian interference he would know about it being the former head of MI6. Also on the issue of Facebook has it crossed your mind that Facebook didn't publish any findings of significant Russian interference because they couldn't find any and there was none to publish. Facebook were asked to look and they did, result is they didn't find any significant Russian interference through their website. " Is this the same fella thats been out the loop since 2004  how the fuck would he know...hes out the loop...but he does say which you fail to mention yet again....that he thinks THERE was Russian involvement in the US elections that your other bum chum Trump got elected in.....more spin and bullshit from you yet again
Sir Richard Billing Dearlove, KCMG, OBE (born 23 January 1945) was head of the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), a role fictionally known as "M" and actually, though informally, as "C",[1] from 1999 until 6 May 2004. Sir Richard was Master of Pembroke College, Cambridge, from 2004 to 2015.
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So there is a story about Russian interference in US civic society (media, elections, politics, social media etc.), the media are deliberately fed a false story about Russian interference, then that mistake is then reported on state sponsored Russian media (your link). You don't think it could have been the Russians who fed them the fake story do you? What an utterly ridiculous post. The correct date was on the email all along, CNN were never fed any false information. Why can the Washington Post spot the correct date on the email and yet CNN, MSNBC and CBS news can't? (unless they have an ulterior motive and political agenda to damage Donald Trump). The link i posted to RT news was just reporting on CNN's handling of the whole affair after it had happened. You are happy to be used as a mouth piece by the Russians to try to undermine democracy in the West. After all they helped you with Brexit, so I guess you owe them one, right? What evidence do you have for that? Only Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of MI6 said on BBC Newsnight tonight that he hasn't seen any evidence to suggest that the Russians interfered in the Uk's EU Referendum in any real significant way. Also UK officials asked Facebook in October to look into the possibility of Russian interference in the EU referendum in the UK and earlier today Facebook published their findings. Facebook said they found hardly any Russian interference in the EU referendum through their website and could only find 3 Russian purchased Facebook ads (which cost less than a dollar) ahead of the Brexit referendum in June 2016 which more Americans were exposed to than Brits. Facebook said they think only around 200 Brits were exposed to the 3 Russian purchased ads (which cost less than a dollar). Facebook said that by far the most anti EU material posted on Facebook during the EU referendum was homegrown material from here in the UK and also ads purchased here in the UK. So it really is true that Russia didn't interfere much in the EU referendum and it's UK citizens on the whole who dislike the EU and posted anti EU material on websites like Facebook. Just for fun after two minutes work: Collins, the MP leading parliament's fake news inquiry, criticised Facebook's efforts. "Facebook responded only with regards to funded advertisements to audiences in the UK from the around 470 accounts and pages run by the Russian based Internet Research Agency, which had been active during the US Presidential election," he said in a statement. “It would appear that no work has been done by Facebook to look for Russian activity around the EU referendum, other than from funded advertisements from those accounts that had already been identified as part of the US Senate's investigation. No work has been done by Facebook to look for other fake accounts and pages that could be linked to Russian backed agencies and which were active during the EU referendum, as I requested." There may well have been no Russian interference at all. What possible reason could they have for destabilising the EU? It's not as if they have been imposing sanctions against Russia or anything. However, what you have posted is only a part of the story. It does not conclude anything really does it? And what of Sir Richard Dearlove's comments about it on BBC Newsnight last night? I noticed you ignored his comments. Don't you think if there was any real significant Russian interference he would know about it being the former head of MI6. Also on the issue of Facebook has it crossed your mind that Facebook didn't publish any findings of significant Russian interference because they couldn't find any and there was none to publish. Facebook were asked to look and they did, result is they didn't find any significant Russian interference through their website. Is this the same fella thats been out the loop since 2004 how the fuck would he know...hes out the loop...but he does say which you fail to mention yet again....that he thinks THERE was Russian involvement in the US elections that your other bum chum Trump got elected in.....more spin and bullshit from you yet again
"So you believe him when he says there was Russian interference in the US Presidential election, but when he says there was NO Russian interference in the EU referendum then you don't believe him???? Why would you believe him about one and not the other? 
Also as you say he's been out the loop since 2004 and you assume because of that he doesn't have a clue about anything then why would you believe him about Russian interference in the US Presidential election? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
Facebook is in full damage control in the US and Europe as it doesnt want to be seen linked to the rise of the alt right and the undermining of democracy. Its limited its investigation to accounts that interfered in the US election and ignored all UK facing accounts to play down the effect it had.
150,000 Russian twitter accounts (vast majority pretending to be UK based) were posting messages in English in the days before Brexit urging a leave vote and posting misinformation. (Imagine 150,000 Centaurs posting fake news and millions of Pats reading and believing every word).
With all that investment and resources in their twitter campaign, knowing the Brexit voters are far more likely to be on facebook than twitter, its ridiculous to think they invested 97p in their facebook campaign. And only a complete idiot would swallow that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So you believe him when he says there was Russian interference in the US Presidential election, but when he says there was NO Russian interference in the EU referendum then you don't believe him???? Why would you believe him about one and not the other?
Also as you say he's been out the loop since 2004 and you assume because of that he doesn't have a clue about anything then why would you believe him about Russian interference in the US Presidential election? "Theres a difference between agreeing with him and taking them as a source of information. Maybe someones cited him as the reason they believe there was Russian interference but Ive not seen that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So somebody who worked for MI6 a decade and a half ago is still completely in the loop and getting daily briefings on national security then?
Facebook is in full damage control in the US and Europe as it doesnt want to be seen linked to the rise of the alt right and the undermining of democracy. Its limited its investigation to accounts that interfered in the US election and ignored all UK facing accounts to play down the effect it had.
150,000 Russian twitter accounts (vast majority pretending to be UK based) were posting messages in English in the days before Brexit urging a leave vote and posting misinformation. (Imagine 150,000 Centaurs posting fake news and millions of Pats reading and believing every word).
With all that investment and resources in their twitter campaign, knowing the Brexit voters are far more likely to be on facebook than twitter, its ridiculous to think they invested 97p in their facebook campaign. And only a complete idiot would swallow that."Jeez that's quite the conspiracy theory you've got going there. Next you'll be calling Facebook another arm of the Kremlin like Wikileaks. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So there is a story about Russian interference in US civic society (media, elections, politics, social media etc.), the media are deliberately fed a false story about Russian interference, then that mistake is then reported on state sponsored Russian media (your link). You don't think it could have been the Russians who fed them the fake story do you? What an utterly ridiculous post. The correct date was on the email all along, CNN were never fed any false information. Why can the Washington Post spot the correct date on the email and yet CNN, MSNBC and CBS news can't? (unless they have an ulterior motive and political agenda to damage Donald Trump). The link i posted to RT news was just reporting on CNN's handling of the whole affair after it had happened. You are happy to be used as a mouth piece by the Russians to try to undermine democracy in the West. After all they helped you with Brexit, so I guess you owe them one, right? What evidence do you have for that? Only Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of MI6 said on BBC Newsnight tonight that he hasn't seen any evidence to suggest that the Russians interfered in the Uk's EU Referendum in any real significant way. Also UK officials asked Facebook in October to look into the possibility of Russian interference in the EU referendum in the UK and earlier today Facebook published their findings. Facebook said they found hardly any Russian interference in the EU referendum through their website and could only find 3 Russian purchased Facebook ads (which cost less than a dollar) ahead of the Brexit referendum in June 2016 which more Americans were exposed to than Brits. Facebook said they think only around 200 Brits were exposed to the 3 Russian purchased ads (which cost less than a dollar). Facebook said that by far the most anti EU material posted on Facebook during the EU referendum was homegrown material from here in the UK and also ads purchased here in the UK. So it really is true that Russia didn't interfere much in the EU referendum and it's UK citizens on the whole who dislike the EU and posted anti EU material on websites like Facebook. Just for fun after two minutes work: Collins, the MP leading parliament's fake news inquiry, criticised Facebook's efforts. "Facebook responded only with regards to funded advertisements to audiences in the UK from the around 470 accounts and pages run by the Russian based Internet Research Agency, which had been active during the US Presidential election," he said in a statement. “It would appear that no work has been done by Facebook to look for Russian activity around the EU referendum, other than from funded advertisements from those accounts that had already been identified as part of the US Senate's investigation. No work has been done by Facebook to look for other fake accounts and pages that could be linked to Russian backed agencies and which were active during the EU referendum, as I requested." There may well have been no Russian interference at all. What possible reason could they have for destabilising the EU? It's not as if they have been imposing sanctions against Russia or anything. However, what you have posted is only a part of the story. It does not conclude anything really does it? And what of Sir Richard Dearlove's comments about it on BBC Newsnight last night? I noticed you ignored his comments. Don't you think if there was any real significant Russian interference he would know about it being the former head of MI6. Also on the issue of Facebook has it crossed your mind that Facebook didn't publish any findings of significant Russian interference because they couldn't find any and there was none to publish. Facebook were asked to look and they did, result is they didn't find any significant Russian interference through their website. Is this the same fella thats been out the loop since 2004 how the fuck would he know...hes out the loop...but he does say which you fail to mention yet again....that he thinks THERE was Russian involvement in the US elections that your other bum chum Trump got elected in.....more spin and bullshit from you yet again
So you believe him when he says there was Russian interference in the US Presidential election, but when he says there was NO Russian interference in the EU referendum then you don't believe him???? Why would you believe him about one and not the other?
Also as you say he's been out the loop since 2004 and you assume because of that he doesn't have a clue about anything then why would you believe him about Russian interference in the US Presidential election? "Im saying your data source is out of date by at least a decade and half....but you must believe him that there WAS interference with the US election if you believe what he says about the referendum!!!!... or doesn't that fit in with your agenda....like i said more spin and more useless information yet again from you....your a sucker for being proved wrong | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So there is a story about Russian interference in US civic society (media, elections, politics, social media etc.), the media are deliberately fed a false story about Russian interference, then that mistake is then reported on state sponsored Russian media (your link). You don't think it could have been the Russians who fed them the fake story do you? What an utterly ridiculous post. The correct date was on the email all along, CNN were never fed any false information. Why can the Washington Post spot the correct date on the email and yet CNN, MSNBC and CBS news can't? (unless they have an ulterior motive and political agenda to damage Donald Trump). The link i posted to RT news was just reporting on CNN's handling of the whole affair after it had happened. You are happy to be used as a mouth piece by the Russians to try to undermine democracy in the West. After all they helped you with Brexit, so I guess you owe them one, right? What evidence do you have for that? Only Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of MI6 said on BBC Newsnight tonight that he hasn't seen any evidence to suggest that the Russians interfered in the Uk's EU Referendum in any real significant way. Also UK officials asked Facebook in October to look into the possibility of Russian interference in the EU referendum in the UK and earlier today Facebook published their findings. Facebook said they found hardly any Russian interference in the EU referendum through their website and could only find 3 Russian purchased Facebook ads (which cost less than a dollar) ahead of the Brexit referendum in June 2016 which more Americans were exposed to than Brits. Facebook said they think only around 200 Brits were exposed to the 3 Russian purchased ads (which cost less than a dollar). Facebook said that by far the most anti EU material posted on Facebook during the EU referendum was homegrown material from here in the UK and also ads purchased here in the UK. So it really is true that Russia didn't interfere much in the EU referendum and it's UK citizens on the whole who dislike the EU and posted anti EU material on websites like Facebook. Just for fun after two minutes work: Collins, the MP leading parliament's fake news inquiry, criticised Facebook's efforts. "Facebook responded only with regards to funded advertisements to audiences in the UK from the around 470 accounts and pages run by the Russian based Internet Research Agency, which had been active during the US Presidential election," he said in a statement. “It would appear that no work has been done by Facebook to look for Russian activity around the EU referendum, other than from funded advertisements from those accounts that had already been identified as part of the US Senate's investigation. No work has been done by Facebook to look for other fake accounts and pages that could be linked to Russian backed agencies and which were active during the EU referendum, as I requested." There may well have been no Russian interference at all. What possible reason could they have for destabilising the EU? It's not as if they have been imposing sanctions against Russia or anything. However, what you have posted is only a part of the story. It does not conclude anything really does it? And what of Sir Richard Dearlove's comments about it on BBC Newsnight last night? I noticed you ignored his comments. Don't you think if there was any real significant Russian interference he would know about it being the former head of MI6. Also on the issue of Facebook has it crossed your mind that Facebook didn't publish any findings of significant Russian interference because they couldn't find any and there was none to publish. Facebook were asked to look and they did, result is they didn't find any significant Russian interference through their website. " If you cite the very former head of MI6, Dearlove as supporting your against Russian interference in the Brexit referendum then you have to accept his opinion that they did interfere in the US general direction 
The inquiry MP also states very plainly that Facebook has not looked into any direct Russian influence in Brexit. They simply took the work they had already done on the US election and found three items that related to Brexit. It says nothing. If you did a Google search on the "US election" how much information would you expect to come up on Brexit? Would that be more or less than if you did a Google search on "Brexit"?
You need to post properly on the cognitive bias thread old chap. Have a look at yourself | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So somebody who worked for MI6 a decade and a half ago is still completely in the loop and getting daily briefings on national security then?
Facebook is in full damage control in the US and Europe as it doesnt want to be seen linked to the rise of the alt right and the undermining of democracy. Its limited its investigation to accounts that interfered in the US election and ignored all UK facing accounts to play down the effect it had.
150,000 Russian twitter accounts (vast majority pretending to be UK based) were posting messages in English in the days before Brexit urging a leave vote and posting misinformation. (Imagine 150,000 Centaurs posting fake news and millions of Pats reading and believing every word).
With all that investment and resources in their twitter campaign, knowing the Brexit voters are far more likely to be on facebook than twitter, its ridiculous to think they invested 97p in their facebook campaign. And only a complete idiot would swallow that."This... "(Imagine 150,000 Centaurs posting fake news and millions of Pats reading and believing every word)." where is the rolling around laughing emoji? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So somebody who worked for MI6 a decade and a half ago is still completely in the loop and getting daily briefings on national security then?
Facebook is in full damage control in the US and Europe as it doesnt want to be seen linked to the rise of the alt right and the undermining of democracy. Its limited its investigation to accounts that interfered in the US election and ignored all UK facing accounts to play down the effect it had.
150,000 Russian twitter accounts (vast majority pretending to be UK based) were posting messages in English in the days before Brexit urging a leave vote and posting misinformation. (Imagine 150,000 Centaurs posting fake news and millions of Pats reading and believing every word).
With all that investment and resources in their twitter campaign, knowing the Brexit voters are far more likely to be on facebook than twitter, its ridiculous to think they invested 97p in their facebook campaign. And only a complete idiot would swallow that.
Jeez that's quite the conspiracy theory you've got going there. Next you'll be calling Facebook another arm of the Kremlin like Wikileaks. "What a vague dismissal of the facts. Which part do you disagree with? The confirmed fact that 150,000 russian language twitter accounts with IPs in Russia were posting in English with the vast majority claiming they were English in favour of Brexit? Or are you claiming that Brexit voters (who were, on average, older than remain) arent more likely to be on facebook than twitter? (Facebooks userbase is also older than twitters on average). Or are you claiming that the Russians invested far more in twitter (by orders of magnitude!) than facebook for some reason? See I dont have to be able to see oxygen in the air around me or take measurements to know its there. I can infer its existance based on the available facts and the evidence and then make a logical conclusion. We know Brexit was a Russian goal. We know Russians used twitter to manipulate the UK electorate to vote leave. We know facebook was and is being used by Russians to manipulate people in Eastern Europe and the US. We know from facebooks shockingly limited investigation that they had some activity on facebook. We know facebook had more of Russias target group for Brexit. Conspiracy theory this is not. However much you try to pretend it isnt. But then again youve spent time and energy trying to defend and pretend russian interference didnt happen. Seems your perfectly happy for an enemy power to manipulate your country towards what Russia believes is a worse future as long as it ties in with your beliefs. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So somebody who worked for MI6 a decade and a half ago is still completely in the loop and getting daily briefings on national security then?
Facebook is in full damage control in the US and Europe as it doesnt want to be seen linked to the rise of the alt right and the undermining of democracy. Its limited its investigation to accounts that interfered in the US election and ignored all UK facing accounts to play down the effect it had.
150,000 Russian twitter accounts (vast majority pretending to be UK based) were posting messages in English in the days before Brexit urging a leave vote and posting misinformation. (Imagine 150,000 Centaurs posting fake news and millions of Pats reading and believing every word).
With all that investment and resources in their twitter campaign, knowing the Brexit voters are far more likely to be on facebook than twitter, its ridiculous to think they invested 97p in their facebook campaign. And only a complete idiot would swallow that."What sources do you have for these “150 000” British twitter accounts that are actually Russian? Would be nice to check. All well and good to diss Centaurs ravings.... but you need to back up the counter argument too. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So somebody who worked for MI6 a decade and a half ago is still completely in the loop and getting daily briefings on national security then?
Facebook is in full damage control in the US and Europe as it doesnt want to be seen linked to the rise of the alt right and the undermining of democracy. Its limited its investigation to accounts that interfered in the US election and ignored all UK facing accounts to play down the effect it had.
150,000 Russian twitter accounts (vast majority pretending to be UK based) were posting messages in English in the days before Brexit urging a leave vote and posting misinformation. (Imagine 150,000 Centaurs posting fake news and millions of Pats reading and believing every word).
With all that investment and resources in their twitter campaign, knowing the Brexit voters are far more likely to be on facebook than twitter, its ridiculous to think they invested 97p in their facebook campaign. And only a complete idiot would swallow that.
What sources do you have for these “150 000” British twitter accounts that are actually Russian? Would be nice to check.
All well and good to diss Centaurs ravings.... but you need to back up the counter argument too."Well Ive previously been banned for posting a link to the Guardian (untrustowrthy rabble rousers that they are) so Ill just point you in the direction and give some detail here. A study by the University of Swansea and Berkeley in California is the one that found 150,000 russian based twitter accounts had been tweeting Russian propoganda on the Ukraine invasion. Tory MP Damian Collins said it was "the most significant evidence yet" of Russian interference in Brexits referendum. The story has been reported by Business Insider, The Guardian, New York Times, Techcrunch, The Sun, The Independent, Standard, The Times, The Mirror and the Daily Mail. So left, right and centre have all reported on this story in case Centaur wants to claim its "fake news". Twitter also revealed it recieved over $1,000 in paid ads from Russia about Brexit from just 1 account. And one of the twitter accounts photoshopped a picture of a muslim woman walking by a victim of the bridge bombing which was immediately reported by The Sun and The Mail as being true. Ill let you make your own judgement as to why those 2 happened to be the ones who printed that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So somebody who worked for MI6 a decade and a half ago is still completely in the loop and getting daily briefings on national security then?
Facebook is in full damage control in the US and Europe as it doesnt want to be seen linked to the rise of the alt right and the undermining of democracy. Its limited its investigation to accounts that interfered in the US election and ignored all UK facing accounts to play down the effect it had.
150,000 Russian twitter accounts (vast majority pretending to be UK based) were posting messages in English in the days before Brexit urging a leave vote and posting misinformation. (Imagine 150,000 Centaurs posting fake news and millions of Pats reading and believing every word).
With all that investment and resources in their twitter campaign, knowing the Brexit voters are far more likely to be on facebook than twitter, its ridiculous to think they invested 97p in their facebook campaign. And only a complete idiot would swallow that.
Jeez that's quite the conspiracy theory you've got going there. Next you'll be calling Facebook another arm of the Kremlin like Wikileaks.
What a vague dismissal of the facts.
Which part do you disagree with?
The confirmed fact that 150,000 russian language twitter accounts with IPs in Russia were posting in English with the vast majority claiming they were English in favour of Brexit?
Or are you claiming that Brexit voters (who were, on average, older than remain) arent more likely to be on facebook than twitter? (Facebooks userbase is also older than twitters on average).
Or are you claiming that the Russians invested far more in twitter (by orders of magnitude!) than facebook for some reason?
See I dont have to be able to see oxygen in the air around me or take measurements to know its there. I can infer its existance based on the available facts and the evidence and then make a logical conclusion.
We know Brexit was a Russian goal. We know Russians used twitter to manipulate the UK electorate to vote leave. We know facebook was and is being used by Russians to manipulate people in Eastern Europe and the US. We know from facebooks shockingly limited investigation that they had some activity on facebook. We know facebook had more of Russias target group for Brexit.
Conspiracy theory this is not. However much you try to pretend it isnt. But then again youve spent time and energy trying to defend and pretend russian interference didnt happen. Seems your perfectly happy for an enemy power to manipulate your country towards what Russia believes is a worse future as long as it ties in with your beliefs.". Tin foil hat for your rantings!!. You don't want the Russians using that ray gun on your brain waves hey | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Which part do you disagree with? The confirmed fact that 150,000 russian language twitter accounts with IPs in Russia were posting in English with the vast majority claiming they were English in favour of Brexit? Or are you claiming that Brexit voters (who were, on average, older than remain) arent more likely to be on facebook than twitter? (Facebooks userbase is also older than twitters on average). Or are you claiming that the Russians invested far more in twitter (by orders of magnitude!) than facebook for some reason? See I dont have to be able to see oxygen in the air around me or take measurements to know its there. I can infer its existance based on the available facts and the evidence and then make a logical conclusion. We know Brexit was a Russian goal. We know Russians used twitter to manipulate the UK electorate to vote leave. We know facebook was and is being used by Russians to manipulate people in Eastern Europe and the US. We know from facebooks shockingly limited investigation that they had some activity on facebook. We know facebook had more of Russias target group for Brexit. Conspiracy theory this is not. However much you try to pretend it isnt. But then again youve spent time and energy trying to defend and pretend russian interference didnt happen. Seems your perfectly happy for an enemy power to manipulate your country towards what Russia believes is a worse future as long as it ties in with your beliefs.. Tin foil hat for your rantings!!. You don't want the Russians using that ray gun on your brain waves hey "When it comes to Brexit its hard to clarify when people are being sarcastic and when theyre actually intent on ignoring reality so you'll have to clarify which you are for me | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" And one of the twitter accounts photoshopped a picture of a muslim woman walking by a victim of the bridge bombing which was immediately reported by The Sun and The Mail as being true. Ill let you make your own judgement as to why those 2 happened to be the ones who printed that." i remember that one... that was the one straight after the westminster bridge attack... that one was confirmed to be russian. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" And one of the twitter accounts photoshopped a picture of a muslim woman walking by a victim of the bridge bombing which was immediately reported by The Sun and The Mail as being true. Ill let you make your own judgement as to why those 2 happened to be the ones who printed that. i remember that one... that was the one straight after the westminster bridge attack... that one was confirmed to be russian." Shushhh dont tell centy | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" And one of the twitter accounts photoshopped a picture of a muslim woman walking by a victim of the bridge bombing which was immediately reported by The Sun and The Mail as being true. Ill let you make your own judgement as to why those 2 happened to be the ones who printed that. i remember that one... that was the one straight after the westminster bridge attack... that one was confirmed to be russian." The Westminster Bridge attack that took place AFTER the EU referendum vote. Doesn't that prove that it was not interfering in the EU referendum campaign if it happened AFTER the vote took place! Maybe CNN's incapacity to understand simple dates and timeline of events (as outlined in the OP) is rubbing off on you with you being one of CNN's biggest fans on here and all. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" And one of the twitter accounts photoshopped a picture of a muslim woman walking by a victim of the bridge bombing which was immediately reported by The Sun and The Mail as being true. Ill let you make your own judgement as to why those 2 happened to be the ones who printed that. i remember that one... that was the one straight after the westminster bridge attack... that one was confirmed to be russian. The Westminster Bridge attack that took place AFTER the EU referendum vote. Doesn't that prove that it was not interfering in the EU referendum campaign if it happened AFTER the vote took place! Maybe CNN's incapacity to understand simple dates and timeline of events (as outlined in the OP) is rubbing off on you with you being one of CNN's biggest fans on here and all. " Good lord, no ones saying it was interfering with the referendum, its an example of Russia manipulating people with propaganda. I cant tell if your purposely trying to derail the conversation and distract from the facts youve been trying to deny or if youre just not capable of following a conversation. If you arent it would at least explain why you ignore so much of what posters address to you. I assumed you were just too cowardly to engage when you cant lie your way out of it easily. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
