Jump to content
270soft Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Thunder

Russia Lawfare article

Which scenario(s) seem the most likely?  

8 members have voted

  1. 1. Select the scenario(s) that seem plausible

    • #1: It’s All a Giant Set of Coincidences and Disconnected Events
    • #2: Trump Attracted Russophiles
      0
    • #3: The Russian Operation Wasn’t Really About Trump at All
      0
    • #4: Russian Intelligence Actively Penetrated the Trump Campaign—But Trump Didn’t Know
    • #5: Russian Intelligence Actively Penetrated the Trump Campaign—And Trump Knew or Should Have Known
    • #6: Kompromat
    • #7: The President of the United States is a Russian Agent


Recommended Posts

https://www.lawfareblog.com/seven-theories-case-what-do-we-really-know-about-laffaire-russe-and-what-could-it-all-mean

https://www.lawfareblog.com/seven-theories-case-updated-one-year-later-what-more-do-we-know-about-laffaire-russe

These seemed like somewhat interesting articles I discovered after the 538 podcast and I wonder what the community thinks about the possibilities.

Note: due to poll error, people may pick extra options if before the poll was changed.

NYRepublican has also chosen option #3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Thunder said:

I can also only choose 1 option when you said scenarios

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I choose five but both campaigns. And it didn't effect the outcome of the election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

@MBDemSoc lmao explain

I voted to look at the results but he likely money launders for the Russians so also kind of a misclick, so Kompromat is closer to what I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, NYrepublican said:

I can also only choose 1 option when you said scenarios

Ah, oops. I thought “multiple-choice” was like a multiple-choice exam (so I didn’t select it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Thunder said:

Ah, oops. I thought “multiple-choice” was like a multiple-choice exam (so I didn’t select it).

I change my vote to 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Thunder said:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/seven-theories-case-what-do-we-really-know-about-laffaire-russe-and-what-could-it-all-mean

https://www.lawfareblog.com/seven-theories-case-updated-one-year-later-what-more-do-we-know-about-laffaire-russe

These seemed like somewhat interesting articles I discovered after the 538 podcast and I wonder what the community thinks about the possibilities.

Note: due to poll error, people may pick extra options if before the poll was changed.

NYRepublican has also chosen option #3.

This is the kind of thread meant to turn EVERYONE into a @Presidentinsertname - someone who just magically KNOWS answers to questions that (and no one on this forum) have any REALISTIC access to such knowledge, but feign it, or say they have a powerful "hunch" or "belief" - mostly based on their own ideology, which governments and politicians they support, and which they would like to see raised up or brought down  by fully subjective opinion and viewpoint - and has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with any remote facts; the majority of which, that are hard and true facts, are unavailable to the public. Forgive me if I don't vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

This is the kind of thread meant to turn EVERYONE into a @Presidentinsertname - someone who just magically KNOWS answers to questions that (and no one on this forum) have any REALISTIC access to such knowledge, but feign it, or say they have a powerful "hunch" or "belief" - mostly based on their own ideology, which governments and politicians they support, and which they would like to see raised up or brought down  by fully subjective opinion and viewpoint - and has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with any remote facts; the majority of which, that are hard and true facts, are unavailable to the public. Forgive me if I don't vote.

I can PROVE #3. If you want me to I'll do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NYrepublican said:

I can PROVE #3. If you want me to I'll do so.

Funny thing is, you've claimed to PROVE things on these forums before. But, to be honest, all you EVER is get sources from other people who back you're opinion, various inconclusive experiments, and numerous polls, but you have never ONCE proven ANYTHING beyond a shadow of a doubt on these forums that wasn't already firmly in the realm of common, entrenched, established, long-standing knowledge. So forgive me is I'm VERY dubious. Oh, and if you link a video, I'll be VERY upset...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Patine said:

This is the kind of thread meant to turn EVERYONE into a @Presidentinsertname - someone who just magically KNOWS answers to questions that (and no one on this forum) have any REALISTIC access to such knowledge, but feign it, or say they have a powerful "hunch" or "belief" - mostly based on their own ideology, which governments and politicians they support, and which they would like to see raised up or brought down  by fully subjective opinion and viewpoint - and has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with any remote facts; the majority of which, that are hard and true facts, are unavailable to the public. Forgive me if I don't vote.

That’s why I put the option for a range of possibilities, to show uncertainty. There also has been information found out about Russia (unless you’ve missed the news for a year or so), so it might be reasonable to have a discussion about a political issue.

5 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

I can PROVE #3. If you want me to I'll do so.

Curious to hear this proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Thunder said:

That’s why I put the option for a range of possibilities, to show uncertainty. There also has been information found out about Russia (unless you’ve missed the news for a year or so), so it might be reasonable to have a discussion about a political issue.

In the last year or so, I've heard more conspiracy theories and visceral, emotionally-charged, and ranting rhetoric devoid of reason, sense, or logic between pro-Trump and anti-Trump than actual hard evidence from these investigations, which Trump continues to deliberately sabotage, but his supporters keep saying it in no way makes him appear guilty or like he has anything to hide at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

Funny thing is, you've claimed to PROVE things on these forums before. But, to be honest, all you EVER is get sources from other people who back you're opinion, various inconclusive experiments, and numerous polls, but you have never ONCE proven ANYTHING beyond a shadow of a doubt on these forums that wasn't already firmly in the realm of common, entrenched, established, long-standing knowledge. So forgive me is I'm VERY dubious. Oh, and if you link a video, I'll be VERY upset...

I won't.

5 minutes ago, Thunder said:

Curious to hear this proof.

Consider the claim that Russia was attempting to use Twitter to promote Trump.

Here's a breakdown of those tweets as per 538

Capture.PNG.15b729ebb77bed9f76e102c33af4d621.PNG

If Russia aimed to promote Trump why would so many tweets be non-English,News Feeds,Commercial or Hashtag Gamers?

It's been claimed that Trump urged the Russians to hack the emails. Do you think this can all be planned in a day? He likely had nothing to do with it.

Besides, no hard evidence has been produced of Kompromat or Russian agents influencing the Trump campaign which is enough to assert that it's untrue until evidence is presented in it's favour.

Not an ironclad proof but it does support #3.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Patine said:

In the last year or so, I've heard more conspiracy theories and visceral, emotionally-charged, and ranting rhetoric devoid of reason, sense, or logic between pro-Trump and anti-Trump than actual hard evidence from these investigations, which Trump continues to deliberately sabotage, but his supporters keep saying it in no way makes him appear guilty or like he has anything to hide at all.

Would you acknowledge reasonable discussion is at least theoretically possible?

And is there a response that would fit your feeling without checking all the options?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Thunder said:

Would you acknowledge reasonable discussion is at least theoretically possible?

And is there a response that would fit your feeling without checking all the options?

You mean "reasonable discussion" like what's ABSOLUTELY NOT going in the actual investigation itself and the vast majority of the media coverage and pundit opinions of it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

You mean "reasonable discussion" like what's ABSOLUTELY NOT going in the actual investigation itself and the vast majority of the media coverage and pundit opinions of it?

 

6 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

I won't.

Consider the claim that Russia was attempting to use Twitter to promote Trump.

Here's a breakdown of those tweets as per 538

Capture.PNG.15b729ebb77bed9f76e102c33af4d621.PNG

If Russia aimed to promote Trump why would so many tweets be non-English,News Feeds,Commercial or Hashtag Gamers?

It's been claimed that Trump urged the Russians to hack the emails. Do you think this can all be planned in a day? He likely had nothing to do with it.

Besides, no hard evidence has been produced of Kompromat or Russian agents influencing the Trump campaign which is enough to assert that it's untrue until evidence is presented in it's favour.

Not an ironclad proof but it does support #3.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

You mean "reasonable discussion" like what's ABSOLUTELY NOT going in the actual investigation itself and the vast majority of the media coverage and pundit opinions of it?

Which is why I’m trying to try a non-pundit view of it. Also, your “partisan slant” thing can be applied to the vast majority of political news, stopping any discussion on this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×