Monday, November 13, 2017

We know A LOT about treasonous behavior interfering in 2016 election ... by gimleteye

The evidence is incontrovertible that treasonous behaviors interfered in the outcome of the 2016 election, with the most recent story involving the Mercer-funded Cambridge Analytica reaching to Wikileaks for data on the Democrats the same week that Cambridge was hired by the Trump campaign.

Steve Bannon was formerly on the board of directors of Cambridge Analytica.

The question most lay readers ask, is "how do we know?" We know, because social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter keep massive backups of data that can be retroactively searched for data "fingerprints" tying individual posting, memes, or tweets to specific users in specific locations.

Here is an article tying together Russian interference in the BREXIT vote -- in which a slim majority of British voters elected to leave the European Union -- and the 2016 presidential election.

With the Trump victory of a margin of less than 100,000 votes in three states, it is probable that social media outreach played an outsized role in the outcome.

US intel agencies unanimously agree that Russia / Putin infiltrated the 2016 races, a fact that Trump denies because if he admitted it -- and evidence proves that his campaign colluded with Russia intel in the development of messaging and outreach through social media databases -- he would in effect be admitting to treason.

All the evidence points in that direction, yet the GOP is silent. Read more, here.


Anonymous said...

What I want to know is where is the evidence that people were actually swayed by the social media, and if so what actually swayed them. I sometimes think when I read about social media and the 2016 election that there is a sense somewhere that people were maybe too stupid to think for themselves and got suckered in by the social media and voted as such OR was it that people were smart, recognize things for what they are and can dissect through the BS and make their own decision.

I also know a lot of people who do not use social media whatsoever and do their own research to decide whom to vote for.

Whether there was a collusion with this person or that person may be valid in a legal sense to those who were involved, but did or did it not really affect the American voter and their brains.

I do however thank you for bringing up such articles that inspire such thoughts as I have written.

Anonymous said...

Your thoughts aren't that inspiring. The electorate is swayed by sound bites reinforced by social media. Are you a troll with too much ego?

Anonymous said...

I feel that we have been taken over by a criminal enterprise. There is something very wrong when 30% of the voters control 70% of the voters. These republicans hate democracy and desire to turn the country into a dictatorship. This man running for the Senate from Alabama is a serial offender. He has probably offended many girls, and they have carried the offense and fear of him with them the rest of their lives. Why would you give him even more power to hurt others?