2017 Lie of the Year: Russian election interference is a 'made-up story'

Politifact has named their lie of the year for 2017

Trump continually asserts that Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election is fake news, a hoax or a made-up story, even though there is widespread, bipartisan evidence to the contrary.

When the nation’s commander-in-chief refuses to acknowledge a threat to U.S. democracy, it makes it all the more difficult to address the problem. For this reason, we name Trump’s claim that the Russia interference is a hoax as our Lie of the Year for 2017.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/dec/12/2017-lie-year-russian-election-interference-made-s/

Too bad there are many that still buy that lie.

Well it must be true when the president is saying it...

Politifact.... the same people who said Hillary running the DNC was a liar liar pants on fire? Pre-Donna Brazile admitting everything (who was then labeled a Russian spy by Hillary... because thats a reasonable claim right?) i might add..... maybe its changed now? Or maybe they're calling the former head of the DNC + some of the most notable political science institutes in the world liars? That politifact?

are you literally making up those claims when it fact politifact didnt make those assertions or did they actually make those assertions?

if so that would make you a.....?

Grasping now are you............

I still have yet to see any positive evidence that Russians interfered.

Positive claims require positive evidence, seeing politicians make claims does not count as evidence.

@Maroxad: While your point is fair, intelligence agencies aren’t politicians, though.

Do you know how politifact works? They never make assertions themselves, they "fact check". When people where talking about how corrupted the DNC was for stealing the election from Bernie because Hillary was in control, they called this a complete lie even though there was enough information to say it was absolutely true. But even since then, we've had the ex-head of the DNC confirm this.

The point is, they have demonstrated a very clear political bias toward neoliberalism and this is not the first time we've seen it.

.... literate person.

Its been over a year since intelligence agencies have been investigating this and so far the best thing they can come up with is some facebook ads. AND the narrative has changed from "collusion" to "influence" or " interference" because of how flimsy this claim actually is. And if we say "influence" or "interference" ... well what the **** does that mean? Israel influences our politicians every single day, as well as China, and basically every first world nation. World powers attempt to interfere with one anothers elections every single election, its why we knew exactly how to avoid actually being hacked.

To top it all off this is coming from America............. its kind of like Cheech and Chong in the 70s pointing at a single person and saying "hey hes smoking a bowl!".

I don't want to take away from your argument because you are right, but I would like to point out that people who know all the ins and outs of interfering in an election are probably also pretty good at spotting it in their own country.

Oh im sure. But i dont think that's the case here, i think the case is the DNC went right to Russian hacks when the Podesta Emails were released, it kind of worked with neoliberals so they started using it for everything. A tactic she also learned from her mentor, war criminal and red scare aficionado, Henry Kissinger. and If we are to go by the leaked emails themselves, we do find plans to use Russia as a scapegoat.

Thread debunked.

Slightly continued........

https://www.globalresearch.ca/breaking-clinton-insiders-reveal-blame-russia-plan-hatched-within-24-hours-of-election-loss/5589964

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37639370

Still people making claims rather than providing concrete evidence.

In physics class, there was something I was extremely skeptical about. So the physics teacher personally took me to his lab, to demonstrate the theory in action. I accepted the theory immediately after that.

What do these intelligence agencies and politicians and MSM do to those skeptical, they insult the people who don't believe in their narrative.

let me ask the question directly and you can answer it directly.

did politifact claim that Hillary was in control was a fact or did they not make that claim?

you are making very explict and clear assertions I am asking you if those assertions are factually accurate. Dont make me look it up by esclating because I will. The more you push the more I will look into how it actually is.....clear?

Do you know how politifact works? They never make assertions themselves, they "fact check".

I am making a very clear assertion, that politifact, a FACT CHECKING ORGANIZATION NOT CLAIM MAKER, is pro neoliberalism.

So instead of going into the conversation knowing wtf you're talking about, you just start with how you feel and then make vague..... "threats" of eventually... maybe... possibly... actually doing some research. Oh no! Please Hammer, don't hurt'em!

if you read my first reply to you and even every reply since you will see I am asking you questions. I never suggest otherwise. I am asking you, you are refusing to answer, which tells me what I need to know I dont even have to look it up :)

but yeah...now you have sparked my curiosity, thanks for that I will look into it, nicely done!

I thought the Clinton Campaign didn't like them because they put out so much stuff about the Clinton money laundering? When were they soft on Clinton?

I think that was Politico.

No i answered it, i answered it very clearly. But for some reason you don't want to accept it. Here, ill do it again.

Politifact does not make assertions, they are not journalists, they are a widely used and often cited fact checking organization.

As for your curiosity, it should have been sparked before you opened your mouth.

no they do make assertions and their site is pretty cool, you can look directly at lies or truths. they do explicitly state it. so my orginal question is very valid and remains unanswered but you know that ;)

Truth-o-Meter is pretty cool.

So if one quote 'the same people who said Hillary running the DNC was a liar liar pants on fire'

either that is on the truth o meter or it is not, is it?

Holy fluff I never noticed they were two distinct things. Sorry!

Henry Rollins agrees

they're liars liars liars.

he's even got the orange skin...

Yah i never really noticed politifact publishing articles, not surprising but whatever. Its not what they are known for or what i was addressing. As for your second part, yes. Thats clearly a paraphrase of the title, but its on the topic of her stealing the election from Bernie. And at the time we even had peer review that evaluated the data by i believe the biggest names were Princeton, Yale and Oxford, who all concluded that the DNCs data didnt make any sense. Even with peer review from some very notable universities for political science, they claimed it to be a lie. And now we have the Donna story, but i dont think ive seen if they've changed their view or evaluated the topic since.

There was a topic where we all discussed politifact and the uranium deal, another thing they said was a lie. And if you read this thread, you'll find an evaluation of how badly they screwed up the topic and had a very obvious direction from the start.

I think i already covered that.

so help me find it, I can look it up they have a search, what should I search for, or can you just provide a link?

You're mixing the stories together. The "interference" and "collusion" investigations are two different things. US intelligence agencies believe Russia did indeed try to interfere with the election, though much of their evidence is classified so we just have to take their word for it. As for collusion, they said from the get-go there were only "signs of possible collusion" with the Trump campaign but never came to any definitive conclusion about it.

I think you meant to respond to me there.

I didnt mix anything, this is simply how we've seen things play out. In our media the two have collided and are used in order to push one another. When they talk about Trump trying to get information on Hillary through Russia, very very very few people (none on cable) want to mention that Hillary did the exact same thing except it was some how legal because she paid for it? They are two different topics, but they're both being used in our media to present this idea that Hillary was a victim and everything bad was due to Trump and Russia some how.

Its one of the best examples of improper propaganda by media and has gotten so bad that in some cases, Fox News is some how actually doing a better job of reporting.

As i already told you it was on the topic of Bernie being cheated by Hillary and the DNC.

can you please provide me a link? I dont know if i should search under Bernie, or Hillary. The truth o meter, can you please send me that?

thanks

I don't even think Russia was involved.

They're conflating their droplets of chaos on social media to the election with their paid trolls. They've always had this even before the election.

lol what, Politifact is one of the most reputable fact check sites. One or two mistakes out of countless thousands means nothing otherwise we wouldn't be able to link ANYTHING here.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/politifact/

LEAST BIASED

These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes). The reporting is factual and usually sourced. These are the most credible media sources. See all Least Biases sources.

Factual Reporting:

VERY HIGH

World Press Freedom Rank: USA 43/180

Notes: PolitiFact.com is a project operated by the Tampa Bay Times, in which reporters and editors from the Times and affiliated media outlets “fact-check statements by members of Congress, the White House, lobbyists and interest groups”. They publish original statements and their evaluations on the PolitiFact.com website, and assign each a “Truth-O-Meter” rating. The ratings range from “True” for completely accurate statements to “Pants on Fire” (from the taunt “Liar, liar, pants on fire”) for false and ridiculous claims. Politifact has been called left biased by Extreme right wing and questionable sources. Our research indicates that Poltifact is an accurate fact checker and is considered the gold standard for political fact checking. (7/10/2016)

Not that it matters what Politifact says, as the FBI, CIA, DHS, and NSA have directly stated as much. Both former and new leaders/members.

I guess you don't like facts.

These are the facts. Troll farms have always been a thing to create political chaos in the west.

Facts are that Russia interferes in elections.........both the US and in Europe. You're wrong. Enjoy!

I swear to god if you are aware of even 1/2 the thing the 'liberal media' is saying, for it all to be a lie would have to be the largest conspiracy cover up in human history making tin foil hats look like small time. Involving in some cases people like Trump Jr. actually liying to make himself look bad and official confessions of guilt be some sort of cover up.

they are admitting guilt!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Russia has no power, legislative or political, to interfere the elections of other countries. if you consider internet chatting as interference, then you should ban freedom of speech altogether. Well, since the US has already abolished Net Neutrality, they are not very far from total internet censorship at this point.

How much does the Kremlin pay you?

Zero. I don't even live in Russia. You people should have tired already of this response. If we believe the democrtats then half of the American population in red states are on Kremlin's payroll. Russia must be the richest country in the world to pay everyone.

You should ask them for a raise then

/thread

Your arguing skills are of a 12-year old. Stay out of discussions if you don't want to contribute anything but trolling.

He can't help himself, comrade Ivan.

Ooops, so that's too high for you? What age level would you like me to bring it down to for you?

I would prefer an actual argument to or question I could reply to.

do you seriously believe that the Russian Government or Russian Intelligence Services really have no abilities to interfere in other countries' elections?