New York Times explains the Russian plot against Hillary Clinton (and therefore America)

by philg

“The Plot to Subvert an Election” (nytimes) shows that the Russian plot against Hillary (and therefore all of us) is so obvious that it takes 30 browser pages to explain.

One thing that the newspaper does not explain is whether the Russians are still engaging in mind control.

“As Critics Assail Trump, His Supporters Dig In Deeper” (nytimes, June 23, 2018) says that “Mr. Trump’s approval rating among Republicans is now about 90 percent.” It was written nearly 2 years following the election. If the idea that Donald Trump would make a better president than Hillary Clinton exists only because of Russian actions during 2016, how is it that tens of millions of people continue to hold this view in 2018?

Readers: Who has the patience to wade through this New York Times exposé? Does it say whom the Russians will pick to be our next president?

8 thoughts on “New York Times explains the Russian plot against Hillary Clinton (and therefore America)”

  1. I do not have such patience, BUT, does the exposé contain the words ‘Russia has expressed concern that western powers attempt to influence its elections and political activity’? because Russia does (and did) voice said accusations, and so the situation is in many ways perfectly symmetrical. The truth of these accusations (from both fronts) is a different matter clearly.

  2. My theory is that the more likable candidate wins the presidential election (for the last several). In Hillary Clinton, the Democrats erred by nominating one of very few people less likable than Mr. Trump.

  3. The idea that elections can be conducted in total isolation from the rest of the world seems crazy if you consider that most voters have a device in the pocket that instantly connects them to almost anybody on the Globe.

    The U.S. would need to null-route the Internet during the election year to get around this.

  4. I suggest to impose the federal martial law and to disconnect the communications channels with the rest of the world until the moment when the elections results are confirmed.
    Presumably this will happen when Hillary Clinton is elected our President. Otherwise, NOT MY PRESIDENT!!!

  5. I did have the patience to waddle through the logic in the article. In my view, it’s a nauseous propaganda piece, as usual.

    The authors use tricks from the Bolsheviks’ books known since the early 20th century. (This is totally orthogonal to the issue of whether or not Russia meddles in our affairs. I would say yes–but that is irrelevant.)

    The only perceivable difference between the recent NYT and The Pravda is that the latter sells for 3 kopecks.

  6. A brief summary:

    from paragraph 5 of the NYT story
    “President Trump’s Twitter outbursts that it is all a “hoax” and a “witch hunt,” in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary, have taken a toll on public comprehension.”

    from paragraph 183
    Mr. Trump’s frustration with the Russian investigation is not surprising. He is right that no public evidence has emerged showing that his campaign conspired with Russia in the election interference or accepted Russian money.

    via http://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/09/nyt-admits-that-its-mountain-of-evidence-for-russian-collusion-is-smaller-than-a-molehill.html

Comments are closed.