Democratic Operative who Bragged about Russian bot ‘False Flag’ issues Contradiction-filled Denial

  • 78 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

21607

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#51  Edited By Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 21607 Posts
@Damedius said:
@zaryia said:

My blog Trumps your blog.

Okay.

Those examples and data were not sourced from blogs.

It was AHARVARD STUDY, SNOPES (of each link directly cited all their facts), NYT, WAPO, and all those links posted. DC pushes conspiracy and false stories.

A factual search reveals a very poor track record with fact checking. Here is a short list of some failed fact checks:

  • “Former President Bill Clinton and his Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI) distributed ‘watered-down’ HIV/AIDS drugs to patients in sub-Saharan Africa.” – FALSE
  • “Jeanne Shaheen was principally involved in a plot with Lois Lerner and President Barack Obama’s political appointee at the IRS to lead a program of harassment against conservative nonprofit groups during the 2012 election” – FALSE
  • George Soros-controlled Smartmatic manufactures the voting machines used in 16 crucial states, and those states will be rigged in favor of Hillary Clinton. – FALSE
  • Indiana Muslims are appalled by a billboard displaying a list of deeds by the Prophet Muhammad even though it is accurate. – MOSTLY FALSE
  • Washington state has updated their curriculum standards to include teaching “transgenderism” to Kindergarteners. – MOSTLY FALSE
  • According to a study by Harvard University'sBerkman Klein Center for Internet and Society, The Daily Caller was among the most popular sites on the right during the 2016 presidential election. The study also found that The Daily Caller provided "amplification and legitimation" for "the most extreme conspiracy sites", such as Truthfeed, Infowars, Gateway Pundit and Conservative Treehouse during the 2016 presidential election.[38][39][40]The Daily Caller also "employed anti-immigrant narratives that echoed sentiments from the alt-right and white nationalists but without the explicitly racist and pro-segregation language."[39]The Daily Caller also played a significant role in creating and disseminating stories that had little purchase outside the right-wing media ecosystem but that stoked the belief among core Trump followers that what Clinton did was not merely questionable but criminal and treasonous. In a campaign that expressed deep anti-Muslim sentiment, a repeated theme was that Hillary Clinton was seriously in hock to Muslim nations.[39] In one of its most frequently shared stories, The Daily Caller falsely asserted that Morocco's King Mohammed VI flew Bill Clinton on a private jet, and that this had been omitted from the Clinton Foundation's tax disclosures.[39]The Daily Caller also made the "utterly unsubstantiated and unsourced claim" that Hillary Clinton got Environmental Protection Agency "head Lisa Jackson to try to shut down Mosaic Fertilizer, described as America’s largest phosphate mining company, in exchange for a $15 million donation to the Clinton Foundation from King Mohammed VI of Morocco, ostensibly to benefit Morocco’s state-owned phosphate company."[39]

    The Daily Caller has published a number of articles that dispute the scientific consensus on climate change.[16] In 2017, The Daily Caller published a story saying that a "peer-reviewed study" by "two scientists and a veteran statistician" found that recent years have not been the warmest ever.[17][18] The alleged "study" was a PDF file on a WordPress blog, and was not peer-reviewed or published in a scientific journal.[17] Also in 2017, The Daily Caller uncritically published a bogus Daily Mail story which claimed that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) manipulated data to make climate change appear worse; at the same time, legitimate news outlets debunked the Daily Mail story.[19][20][21] Also in 2017, The Daily Caller published a story claiming that a study found no evidence of accelerating temperatures over a 23-year period, which climate scientists described as a misleading story.[16] In 2016, The Daily Caller published a story claiming that climate scientist Michael Mann (director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University) had asserted that data was unnecessary to measure climate change; Mann described the story as "egregiously false".[22] In 2015, The Daily Caller wrote that NOAA "fiddle[d]" with data when the agency published a report concluding that there was no global warming hiatus.[23][24]

You lost this "debate", badly. DC is not a reputable source. I know this to be true, because you had to move the goal post away from your own thread topic once you found out DC and RT simply chopped up a fact based NYT article.

Avatar image for Damedius
Damedius

737

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#52 Damedius
Member since 2010 • 737 Posts

@zaryia said:
@Damedius said:
@zaryia said:

My blog Trumps your blog.

Okay.

Those examples and data were not sourced from blogs.

So you admit that https://mediabiasfactcheck.com is really just a glorified blog?

Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

21607

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#53  Edited By Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 21607 Posts
@Damedius said:
@zaryia said:
@Damedius said:
@zaryia said:

My blog Trumps your blog.

Okay.

Those examples and data were not sourced from blogs.

So you admit that https://mediabiasfactcheck.com is really just a glorified blog?

1. It's not a blog. The sources they directly link aren't blogs. Unless you can refute that Harvard study and Snopes links.

2. I have given other links showing DC is not reliable if you are so hung up on MBFC. This is clearly a goal post move.

3. You're dodging your own thread topic because I won it. That's bad.

Avatar image for Damedius
Damedius

737

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#54 Damedius
Member since 2010 • 737 Posts

@zaryia said:

1. It's not a blog. The sources they directly link aren't blogs. Unless you can refute that Harvard study and Snopes links.

2. I have given other links showing DC is not reliable if you are so hung up on MBFC. This is clearly a goal post move.

3. You're dodging your own thread topic because I won it. That's bad.

So if a blog directly links sources that aren't blogs, they stop being blogs?

Good to know.

Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

21607

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#55  Edited By Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 21607 Posts
@Damedius said:
@zaryia said:

1. It's not a blog. The sources they directly link aren't blogs. Unless you can refute that Harvard study and Snopes links.

2. I have given other links showing DC is not reliable if you are so hung up on MBFC. This is clearly a goal post move.

3. You're dodging your own thread topic because I won it. That's bad.

So if a blog directly links sources that aren't blogs, they stop being blogs?

Good to know.

1. It's not a blog. But even if it was, it wouldn't matter, I provided more than ample citation from other fact based sources and I directly placed them here. You moved the goal post after I did this.

2. You lost the DC debate. You offered no citation disproving Snopes, Harvard, MBFC, NYT, or WaPo showing that DC is not reliable. DC posts conspiracy and intentional inaccuracy. So you moved the goal post.

3. You lost the OP debate. You offered no citation disproving NYT. So you moved the goal post.

I'm not sure why you keep responding. You objectively lost the second I offered fact based links. You are aware that getting the last post in won't change this, correct?

If your next reply doesn't contain links with data that actually refute what I've linked, you're admitting you're trash.

Avatar image for Damedius
Damedius

737

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#56 Damedius
Member since 2010 • 737 Posts

@zaryia said:

1. It's not a blog. But even if it was, it wouldn't matter, I provided more than ample citation from other fact based sources.

2. You lost the DC debate. You offered no citation disproving Snopes, Harvard, MBFC, NYT, or WaPo showing that DC is not reliable. DC posts conspiracy and intentional inaccuracy. So you moved the goal post.

3. You lost the OP debate. You offered no citation disproving NYT. So you moved the goal post.

I'm not sure why you keep responding. You objectively lost the second I offered fact based links. You are aware that getting the last post in won't change this, correct?

If your next reply doesn't contain links with data that actually refute what I've linked, you're admitting you're trash.

So you are walking back your blog theory now?

I'm just trying to figure out which blogs are reputable or not. You seem to have a convoluted way of figuring it out and don't seem to be able to codify it any way.

Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

21607

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#57  Edited By Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 21607 Posts
@Damedius said:
@zaryia said:

1. It's not a blog. But even if it was, it wouldn't matter, I provided more than ample citation from other fact based sources.

2. You lost the DC debate. You offered no citation disproving Snopes, Harvard, MBFC, NYT, or WaPo showing that DC is not reliable. DC posts conspiracy and intentional inaccuracy. So you moved the goal post.

3. You lost the OP debate. You offered no citation disproving NYT. So you moved the goal post.

I'm not sure why you keep responding. You objectively lost the second I offered fact based links. You are aware that getting the last post in won't change this, correct?

If your next reply doesn't contain links with data that actually refute what I've linked, you're admitting you're trash.

So you are walking back your blog theory now?

I'm just trying to figure out which blogs are reputable or not. You seem to have a convoluted way of figuring it out and don't seem to be able to codify it any way.

MBFC isn't a blog. You're moving the goal post and trying to change this debate into whether MBFC is a blog or not, instead of admitting you lost the debate about DC, RT, and Russian Interference.

You are super bad at debating, the fact that I defeated you in 3 separate times ITT shows as much.

If your next reply doesn't contain links with data that actually refute what I've linked, you're admitting you're trash.

Hi, trash.

Avatar image for Damedius
Damedius

737

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#58  Edited By Damedius
Member since 2010 • 737 Posts

@zaryia said:

Basically whatever I claim

So you have no way to distinguish what is and isn't a reputable source. You just decide for yourself and everyone should listen to you.

Got you. you could have saved us all a lot of time if you had of been more forward from the start.

Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

21607

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#59  Edited By Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 21607 Posts
@Damedius said:
@zaryia said:

Basically whatever I claim

So you have no way to distinguish what is and isn't a reputable source. You just decide for yourself and everyone should listen to you.

Got you. you could have saved us all a lot of time if you had of been more forward from the start.

I backed up the fact that DC is not reputable.

You have given zero counter citation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dominican-official-links-daily-caller-to-alleged-lies-about-menendez/2013/03/22/d81470d0-930a-11e2-8ea1-956c94b6b5b9_story.html?utm_term=.699b4dfe0f39

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/was-there-really-spy-inside-trump-campaign-president-says-n875516

https://www.politifact.com/global-news/statements/2016/sep/23/daily-caller/conservative-website-wrongly-ties-clinton-foundati/

https://www.politifact.com/new-hampshire/statements/2014/nov/04/daily-caller/jeanne-shaheen-hit-last-minute-attack-over-lois-le/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/george-soros-controls-smartmatic-voting-machines-in-16-states/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/indiana-muslims-muhammads-deeds/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/washington-state-to-teach-transgenderism-to-kindergartners/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/climatology-fraud-global-warming/

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/sep/25/the-mails-censure-shows-which-media-outlets-are-biased-on-climate-change

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-caller/

https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/woman-paid-lie-claim-sex-senator-menendez/story?id=18653773

Feel free to refute this claim with your own citation. Thank you.

Avatar image for Damedius
Damedius

737

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#60 Damedius
Member since 2010 • 737 Posts

@zaryia said:
@Damedius said:
@zaryia said:

Basically whatever I claim

So you have no way to distinguish what is and isn't a reputable source. You just decide for yourself and everyone should listen to you.

Got you. you could have saved us all a lot of time if you had of been more forward from the start.

I backed up the fact that DC is not reputable.

You have given zero counter citation.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/george-soros-controls-smartmatic-voting-machines-in-16-states/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/indiana-muslims-muhammads-deeds/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/washington-state-to-teach-transgenderism-to-kindergartners/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/climatology-fraud-global-warming/

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/29/the-unreliable-facts-of-a-fact-checking-site/

The unreliable 'facts' of a fact-checking site

I found this article on Snopes. I guess they can't be used as a reliable source any more.

Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

21607

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#61  Edited By Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 21607 Posts
@Damedius said:
@zaryia said:
@Damedius said:
@zaryia said:

Basically whatever I claim

So you have no way to distinguish what is and isn't a reputable source. You just decide for yourself and everyone should listen to you.

Got you. you could have saved us all a lot of time if you had of been more forward from the start.

I backed up the fact that DC is not reputable.

You have given zero counter citation.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/george-soros-controls-smartmatic-voting-machines-in-16-states/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/indiana-muslims-muhammads-deeds/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/washington-state-to-teach-transgenderism-to-kindergartners/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/climatology-fraud-global-warming/

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/29/the-unreliable-facts-of-a-fact-checking-site/

The unreliable 'facts' of a fact-checking site

I found this article on Snopes. I guess they can't be used as a reliable source any more.

1. That's a single short opinion piece. "ANALYSIS/OPINION", and it's quite isolated and quite short. Where are the long fact check lists, large articles, studies, and conspiracy lists by multiple trusted sources like I posted? You seem lost bro.

2. Refute the actual data in those specific Snopes articles. Refute the data in the Politifact article. Refute the Harvard Study. Refute NYT. Refute WaPo. Refute ABC. Refute The Guardian. Show me their fact checks of DC are incorrect. Here they are again,

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dominican-official-links-daily-caller-to-alleged-lies-about-menendez/2013/03/22/d81470d0-930a-11e2-8ea1-956c94b6b5b9_story.html?utm_term=.699b4dfe0f39

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/was-there-really-spy-inside-trump-campaign-president-says-n875516

https://www.politifact.com/global-news/statements/2016/sep/23/daily-caller/conservative-website-wrongly-ties-clinton-foundati/

https://www.politifact.com/new-hampshire/statements/2014/nov/04/daily-caller/jeanne-shaheen-hit-last-minute-attack-over-lois-le/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/george-soros-controls-smartmatic-voting-machines-in-16-states/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/indiana-muslims-muhammads-deeds/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/washington-state-to-teach-transgenderism-to-kindergartners/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/climatology-fraud-global-warming/

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/sep/25/the-mails-censure-shows-which-media-outlets-are-biased-on-climate-change

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-caller/

https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/woman-paid-lie-claim-sex-senator-menendez/story?id=18653773

3. But more importantly, it doesn't matter if DC is seen as a untrusted and unreliable (they are), the article you linked (and by RT) are merely copying a fact based NYT article and adding their spin + chopping it up. You should have just posted the direct factual source (NYT article) instead of wackjob conspiracy or state run sites.

You lost the OP debate. You moved the goal post, and then you lost the DC debate. Keep digging.

Avatar image for Damedius
Damedius

737

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#62  Edited By Damedius
Member since 2010 • 737 Posts

@zaryia said:

Stuff

Loading Video...

Who is this David Emery guy?

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180201

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#63 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180201 Posts

@Damedius: At some point you have to deal in facts dude........

Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

21607

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#64 Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 21607 Posts
@LJS9502_basic said:

@Damedius: At some point you have to deal in facts dude........

I think he's trolling.

Avatar image for mattbbpl
mattbbpl

23354

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#65 mattbbpl
Member since 2006 • 23354 Posts

I stand corrected.

Avatar image for Damedius
Damedius

737

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#66  Edited By Damedius
Member since 2010 • 737 Posts

@zaryia said:
@LJS9502_basic said:

@Damedius: At some point you have to deal in facts dude........

I think he's trolling.

One would think you would be more concerned about contributors to a website, that you love to cite are promoting fake news.

I mean you seem to be concerned about fake news and reputable sources, except when you aren't.

Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

21607

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#67  Edited By Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 21607 Posts
@Damedius said:
@zaryia said:
@LJS9502_basic said:

@Damedius: At some point you have to deal in facts dude........

I think he's trolling.

One would think you would be more concerned about contributors to a website, that you love to cite are promoting fake news.

I mean you seem to be concerned about fake news and reputable sources, except when you aren't.

1. The Guardian, ABC, WaPo, NYT, Media Bias Fact Check (Not a Blog), Snopes, Politifact, and Harvard are not wrong about DailyCaller. If you believe they are, refute the links I posted.

Until further notice, DC, Breitbart, ThegatewayPundit, Infowars, etc. are not taken seriously and not reputable.

I mean c'mon,

https://earther.gizmodo.com/the-epa-is-now-relying-on-the-daily-caller-to-lie-about-1830739948

2. Why did you abandon your original post? Is it because you can't counter the fact that RT and DC are merely spinning the fact based NYT article? You seemed to completely have dropped it after I displayed these facts. Interesting, admit you lost that debate at least.

Avatar image for Damedius
Damedius

737

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#68 Damedius
Member since 2010 • 737 Posts

@zaryia said:

I'm the authority on all reputable sources.

Lol. Cool story bro.

Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

21607

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#69  Edited By Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 21607 Posts
@Damedius said:

Lol. Cool story bro.

The Guardian, ABC, WaPo, NYT, MBFC, Snopes, Politifact, and Harvard are more reputable, accurate, and trusted than Daily Caller. I'm confident in stating this fact.

As it pertains to your specific thread, I've proven the hackjob DC blog was not wise to use over the actual fact based source material it copied from (NYT). This is where the goal post move occurred. You're squirming.

Avatar image for Damedius
Damedius

737

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#70 Damedius
Member since 2010 • 737 Posts

@zaryia said:
@Damedius said:

Lol. Cool story bro.

The Guardian, ABC, WaPo, NYT, MBFC, Snopes, Politifact, and Harvard are more reputable, accurate, and trusted than Daily Caller. I'm confident in stating this fact.

As it pertains to your specific thread, I've proven the hackjob DC blog was not wise to use over the actual fact based source material it copied from (NYT). This is where the goal post move occurred. You're squirming.

All you have proven is that fake news and reputable sources only matter when it suits you.

You move the goalposts wherever you want them to be.

Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

21607

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#71  Edited By Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 21607 Posts
@Damedius said:

All you have proven is that fake news and reputable sources only matter when it suits you.

Trolling won't help you at this point.

Avatar image for Damedius
Damedius

737

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#72  Edited By Damedius
Member since 2010 • 737 Posts

@zaryia said:
@Damedius said:

All you have proven is that fake news and reputable sources only matter when it suits you.

Trolling won't help you at this point.

You got me scurred brah.

Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

21607

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#73 Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 21607 Posts
@Damedius said:
@zaryia said:
@Damedius said:

All you have proven is that fake news and reputable sources only matter when it suits you.

Trolling won't help you at this point.

You got me scurred brah.

Are you a climate denier?

Avatar image for Damedius
Damedius

737

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#74 Damedius
Member since 2010 • 737 Posts

@zaryia said:

Are you a climate denier?

Hey it's the fact denier. The one excuses a company making fake russian bot accounts because they said it was an experiment.

Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

21607

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#75  Edited By Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 21607 Posts
@Damedius said:
@zaryia said:

Are you a climate denier?

Hey it's the fact denier.

Nice lie.

I never denied anything from the the NYT story which caught no traction (because there was no scandal), and that they did this as an experiment, and that it "was likely too small to have a significant effect on the race". I'm telling you RT and DC are seen as unreliable sources (one a conspiracy blog, the other registered as foreign agent), and that you should have posted the original and full article. Not the twisted copy pasta blog versions. Your RT link especially made random assumptions and opinions based off of reporting someone else did (NYT), they even say NYT "exposed" New Knowledge when the information was in a senate report and a PUBLIC interview LMAO. You used the RT version because it cryptically puts doubt into Russian meddling (RT's job, they have dozens of articles trying to do this).

However, do you deny Russia interfered, reaching 100s millions of Americans, hacking the DNC, and spent several millions doing so? You seem to ghost around the central issue while cryptically linking to sources that doubt this. Like in that stupid meddling spending thread. I take it you won't respond to this particular inquiry.

Avatar image for Damedius
Damedius

737

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#76  Edited By Damedius
Member since 2010 • 737 Posts

@zaryia said:

I never denied the fact that they did this as an experiment, and that it "was likely too small to have a significant effect on the race" as stated by the original article (NYT). I'm telling you RT and DC are unreliable sources, and objectively chopped up their source (NYT). I'm saying you should have posted the real article, and not the copy pasta blog versions.

However, do you deny Russia interfered? You seem to ghost around the central issue while cryptically linking to sources that doubt this. Like in that stupid meddling spending thread.

They say that this was experiment, that doesn't mean they told the truth. The person that wrote the article stated that it "was likely too small..." however, the media at the time noticed it and tried to link Roy Moore to the activity of "Russian Bots," which was actually an American Company. So it most definitely did have some impact or the media would have never picked up on it in the first place.

Also what from that RT and Daily Caller articles are false?

I'm kind of at a loss as to why you seem to be calling this not interference when they spend a significant amount of money on just one race. It's interference when Russia alleged does it but not when Democrats do it? Would you feel the same if Republicans did it?

All in all you are just making excuses and applying double standards.

Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

21607

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#77 Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 21607 Posts
@Damedius said:

It's interference when Russia alleged does it but not when Democrats do it? Would you feel the same if Republicans did it?

It's not alleged.

Please stop embarrassing yourself.

@Damedius said:

Also what from that RT and Daily Caller articles are false?

They left out that it was "likely too small to have an impact", which is why this story never grew big or became a scandal and that it's dead already. You know, that's pretty substantial. It also stated he "boasted" about it. It stated his goal was to discredit Moore, not that it was an experiment. Neither of these items are in the NYT article they are copying.

Next time link the actual source article and not the conspiracy sites citing it.

Avatar image for Damedius
Damedius

737

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#78  Edited By Damedius
Member since 2010 • 737 Posts

@zaryia said:

They left out that it was "likely too small to have an impact", which is why this story never grew big or became a scandal and that it's dead already. You know, that's pretty substantial. It also stated he "boasted" about it. It stated his goal was to discredit Moore, not that it was an experiment. Neither of these items are in the NYT article they are copying.

Next time link the actual source article and not the conspiracy sites citing it.

I'll stop linking "conspiracy sites' when you stop linking sites that have contributors who promote fake news. You got to be consistent.

That was Johnathan Morgan's tweet at the time. He knew he was creating those "Russian Trolls" yet he still tweeted that. Seems like a guy you can trust.

So a guy who makes his living off of Russia hysteria, creates more Russia hysteria and you are willing to brush it off.

Any integrity you had, just left the forums.