27 Nov 19
@metal-brain saidTwitter doesn't police election interference.
Was it the use of bots to promote RT? Twitter banned RT for a reason.
https://www.rt.com/news/407861-twitter-policy-rt-accounts/
Cambridge Analytica, which worked with the Trump campaign during the 2016 presidential election, is accused of mining the data of 50 million Facebook users, without their explicit knowledge or consent, and then attempting to use it to infl ...[text shortened]... hat when the British are involved in election interference it is never used to demonize the British?
Cambridge Analytica isn't "the British."
@kazetnagorra saidFrom the link below:
Twitter doesn't police election interference.
Cambridge Analytica isn't "the British."
“Early this year, the US intelligence community named RT and Sputnik as implementing state-sponsored Russian efforts to interfere with and disrupt the 2016 presidential election, which is not something we want on Twitter,” the California-based company said in a statement on its blog."
https://www.rt.com/news/407861-twitter-policy-rt-accounts/
Why did the US intelligence community named RT and Sputnik as implementing state-sponsored Russian efforts to interfere with and disrupt the 2016 presidential election?
Cambridge Analytica is a British firm.
@metal-brain saidThe headline in the first is wrong; Gabbard's lawyers sent a letter, they have not sued i.e. filed a lawsuit. It would be almost a sure loser if they did considering the leeway the law gives comments regarding public figures.
Fake news?
https://newspunch.com/tulsi-gabbard-sues-hillary-clinton-claiming-russian-agent/
https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/
Assange's opinion piece doesn't effect the legal rulings I provided.
27 Nov 19
@metal-brain saidNot the same thing. It's you have to be explained this.
The DNC rigged the primary against Sanders and now Obama has expressed his intention to ruin Sanders chances of winning the nomination.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/obama-bernie-sanders-2020-nomination_n_5ddd31a1e4b00149f724793b
If a foreign nation did that it would be outrageous. Not so much when a domestic politician does it. The USA has a long history of electi ...[text shortened]... establishment hates socialism. They will interfere with elections abroad and at home to undercut it.
The DNC in 2016 put their thumb on the scale for Clinton. It ran closed primaries. It messed with voting. It declared the super delegates for Clinton from day one. It gave her debate questions ahead of time.
Obama is a private citizen expressing his desire to campaign for or against a candidate, that's his right. It's absolutely no different than AOC campaigning for Sanders or Sanders (should he win) campaigning against anyone not supporting his agenda in their state's elections. I fully support that and i can't wait for Obama declaring himself for a candidate.
I want to see him support the sinking ship that is Biden. If he decides to go with someone else, that would be the final nail in Biden's campaign's coffin. And in that case it would be interesting to see who he supports.
27 Nov 19
"What will Obama do to stop Bernie Sanders"
She mentions how it would look if Obama, largely silent through all the numerous atrocities Trump has committed in his presidency, would choose this time to get involved. Just to stop Sanders. How revealing of his true self.
27 Nov 19
@zahlanzi saidI'm just saying there is a systematic suppression of socialism in my country domestically and abroad. There is a pattern here.
Not the same thing. It's you have to be explained this.
The DNC in 2016 put their thumb on the scale for Clinton. It ran closed primaries. It messed with voting. It declared the super delegates for Clinton from day one. It gave her debate questions ahead of time.
Obama is a private citizen expressing his desire to campaign for or against a candidate, that's his right ...[text shortened]... nail in Biden's campaign's coffin. And in that case it would be interesting to see who he supports.
I never said what Obama intends to do is illegal. I just think it is unethical. He isn't talking about supporting a candidate so much as talking about opposing one. Not surprising though, Obama is a republican in democrats clothing. He is a DINO. He only talks like a democrat. His health care was based on the republican health care proposal.
Obama serves the elites.
27 Nov 19
@metal-brain said"I never said what Obama intends to do is illegal"
I'm just saying there is a systematic suppression of socialism in my country domestically and abroad. There is a pattern here.
I never said what Obama intends to do is illegal. I just think it is unethical. He isn't talking about supporting a candidate so much as talking about opposing one. Not surprising though, Obama is a republican in democrats clothing. He is a DIN ...[text shortened]... ocrat. His health care was based on the republican health care proposal.
Obama serves the elites.
It's not election interference then.
"I just think it is unethical"
Why. He is a public figure exercising his right to have an opinion. If he held a position of power in the dnc then yes it would be unethical. Like what Wasserman-Schulz did.
"He isn't talking about supporting a candidate so much as talking about opposing one"
Exactly what Sanders said he will do to Joe Manchin. Which i 100% support.
"Not surprising though, Obama is a republican in democrats clothing. He is a DINO. He only talks like a democrat."
Something progressives have been saying for years.
"His health care was based on the republican health care proposal."
Did the real metal brain sell his rhp account? Did he get hacked? You're making way too much sense for the metal brain.
@zahlanzi saidThe idea that democrats ever do anything illegal is absurd.
"I never said what Obama intends to do is illegal"
It's not election interference then.
"I just think it is unethical"
Why. He is a public figure exercising his right to have an opinion. If he held a position of power in the dnc then yes it would be unethical. Like what Wasserman-Schulz did.
"He isn't talking about supporting a candidate so much as talking about opp ...[text shortened]... brain sell his rhp account? Did he get hacked? You're making way too much sense for the metal brain.
Sure, they do a few things like being unethical, like not paying their taxes, perjuring themselves under oath, lying to the FBI about your e-mails, target conservatives with the IRS, giving your son million dollar jobs overseas for just having your last name, fixing elections within your own party, running guns across the border to drug lords at tax payer expense, etc., but they never do anything illegal.
Right wing freaks!!
So either the democrats own the FBI, DOJ, court systems, etc., or you can take off your tin foiled hat and just accept the righteous nature of the entire democrat party.
The choice is yours.
28 Nov 19
@zahlanzi saidWho said election interference is always illegal. Debbie Wasserman Schultz interfered in the elections and she was never charged with a crime.
"I never said what Obama intends to do is illegal"
It's not election interference then.
"I just think it is unethical"
Why. He is a public figure exercising his right to have an opinion. If he held a position of power in the dnc then yes it would be unethical. Like what Wasserman-Schulz did.
"He isn't talking about supporting a candidate so much as talking about opp ...[text shortened]... brain sell his rhp account? Did he get hacked? You're making way too much sense for the metal brain.
Obama is not supporting anyone. He is against Sanders. You need to know the difference between supporting and opposing.
"Exactly what Sanders said he will do to Joe Manchin."
I have never heard of that. What is your source?
@Zahlanzi
"Obama is a private citizen expressing his desire to campaign for or against a candidate, that's his right. "
Let me see if I have this correctly: Obama can express his opinion of a given candidate without interfering with the election but a bunch of Ruskies can't tell the Americans that Hilary and the DNC cheated in the primary election because that would be "interference with an election".
We don't want meddling in our elections!
28 Nov 19
@earl-of-trumps saidA "bunch of Russkies", who happened to be military officers, hacked into and stole documents from US citizens and a political organization in an effort to place a person in the office of President of the United States who would be more mallable to the wishes of the Russian government.
@Zahlanzi
"Obama is a private citizen expressing his desire to campaign for or against a candidate, that's his right. "
Let me see if I have this correctly: Obama can express his opinion of a given candidate without interfering with the election but a bunch of Ruskies can't tell the Americans that Hilary and the DNC cheated in the primary election because that would be "interference with an election".
We don't want meddling in our elections!
Justifying that makes you a borderline traitor.
28 Nov 19
@earl-of-trumps saidExactly. Exposing election interference is not election interference. Whoever exposed it did us a great service. Democrats are trying to cover up DNC election interference by demonizing the whistleblower.
@Zahlanzi
"Obama is a private citizen expressing his desire to campaign for or against a candidate, that's his right. "
Let me see if I have this correctly: Obama can express his opinion of a given candidate without interfering with the election but a bunch of Ruskies can't tell the Americans that Hilary and the DNC cheated in the primary election because that would be "interference with an election".
We don't want meddling in our elections!
@metal-brain saidYou really don't know what a "whistleblower" is if you are stupid enough to think that members of a foreign military stealing from US private citizens and organizations to further the nefarious policies of their government could possibly be considered one.
Exactly. Exposing election interference is not election interference. Whoever exposed it did us a great service. Democrats are trying to cover up DNC election interference by demonizing the whistleblower.
28 Nov 19
@no1marauder saidWhat are you talking about? The DNC was an inside job. We have been over this before. That was determined by former NSA agents.
You really don't know what a "whistleblower" is if you are stupid enough to think that members of a foreign military stealing from US private citizens and organizations to further the nefarious policies of their government could possibly be considered one.
https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/
The whistleblower exposed election meddling. Exposing election meddling is NOT election meddling. If it is you have to acknowledge your singing cockroach is election meddling.
Same logic. Double think is not logical. You have been brainwashed with a false narrative. DWS and Donna Brazile were election meddling.
Exposing election meddling is NOT election meddling. It is called a great service to our country and you are being an ingrate and a hypocrite.