Is it true that "So many on the left tried to convince us that this Russia story was bogus"?

[Akamai]

I don't think so, and I sure need evidence before I believe this is the case. Right now this is just an assertion without any proof at all.

I consider myself very liberal, and I've never doubted that there was Russian involvement in the election.

Who are the major lefties who said that the "Russian story was bogus"?

Seems to me that this story is creating a rift when there shouldn't be one.

Any reactions?

[BigmanPigman]

1. Hell NO!

[Sneederbunk]

2. Not many, but The Nation comes to mind.

[RelativelyJones]

78. Yes, the Nation editors have been Putin apologists for years.

[JustAnotherGen]

3. Green Candidate Stein

I'm not on the Twitter but saw a thread here yesterday where she had just tweeted - basically saying it was bogus.

Aren't TYT against the Democratic party too? I thought I've read he's actually a Libertarian? It's possible to be a Left Libertarian. My great grandfather won elections in Elko NV for many years as one.

But - he had an intense hatred for Russia . . . And Germany (French WW I Veteran).

[NCTraveler]

4. I seriously question if there is anything "left" with Stein and her followers. Nt

[defacto7]

5. That was a prominent position

among quite a few left talking or independent sites like The Intercept, Jackpine radicals, Consortium news, of course Wikileaks among others. I don’t know of any prominent Dems off hand.

[Hortensis]

114. The person you're addressing may not even be here now,

but could also be avoiding continued discussion. We all have that right.

As for Schumer, I'll answer you. He didn't say that the Russians, or others who could be but weren't named, were not to blame at all, he said when you lose like that you look to yourself and ask what you could have done better. Because we can't control the Russians, we have to work on doing better ourselves.

That honest assumption of responsibility is extremely different from what many are claiming -- that we lost the election because we were too stupid, corrupt, and uncaring to win.

Now, please understand that newbies are not specially flamed here. Quite the contrary. Most are welcomed, settle right in to chat, and become valued members of the DU community. Those who do not understand and value what is great about the Democratic Party mostly choose to go elsewhere.

[Hortensis]

120. Think so. But keep looking. We're a big community,

and you'll find lots of people you can enjoy talking with here.

[defacto7]

111. Thanks for the article..

I think he's talking about the blame game basically and I don't exactly disagree. He's not tearing down the Russian involvement or denying they hacked the election, he's putting the resposibility for loosing elsewhere. Maybe true, maybe not. What he's aluding to is that if the Dems had played it differently the Russian hacks wouldn't have been enough to make HRC lose. I don't know if that's correct or not.
Just in general, it is better to focus on what we can do and change to win than waste time blaming everything.
In the meantime, investigate and prosecute the colusion and financial crimes to the fullest, maybe as a different subject than past wins and losses. Prosecute crimes against the nation for what they really are.

[broadcaster90210]

6. I sure never saw it.

nt

[MineralMan]

7. Well, I'm not sure they were really "on the left"

but there were plenty of people here selling that line of excrement. They're not here any longer. They've gone somewhere else, and good riddance to them.

I won't mention where. There's no sense in sending people there.

[Wounded Bear]

12. I think it came from our own "alt-left"...nt

[Akamai]

15. What the hell is alt-left? And do they represent

Average a lefties? Or maybe they are more likely to be anarchists or paid shills.

[emulatorloo]

86. Alleged "progressives" who promote alt-right talking points and alt-right CT

Here are a couple examples: Jimmy Dore and Michael Tracy of "The Young Turks"

Link to tweet

------

Link to tweet

[Gothmog]

8. Go to the JPR website

Putin is our friend on that website. JPR is full of russian lovers and there are threads every day on why the Russian matter is a hoax

JPR was also a site for fake news stories pushed by Russians. There were five or six threads on the pizzagate story at one time even after this lie was debunked. I was amused to see that the idiot admins on that site had to ban pizzagate stories

[Akamai]

23. Who the hell wants to go to BS websites? I want crazy stuff, I can turn on FOX.

[Gothmog]

27. The idiots on JPR website claim to be from the left but are clearly putin lovers

If you want proof that there are supposed left types pushing the denial of russia got to this supposed liberal site. I note that this site is now showing inforwars segments and so it is clear that there are no true liberals on that site

[MountCleaners]

64. Putin is a repressive dictator

...and any principled leftist should oppose him. Haven't these people read any Masha Gessen?

[Gothmog]

136. Go read the JPR site

There are multiple threads defending Russia and Putin on that crazy board

[bettyellen]

45. That BS website you dismiss as irrelevant was created by DUers.

None so blind as those who WILL not see. In your case you've made it plain that this is your choice. To ignore the majority of the answers given. Not too clever a ploy. Muddy those waters and stoke division.

[Akamai]

53. who gives a hoot? You spend time over there? I have never. The claim made was not

that a group of people at JPR don't believe Russian involvement.

The claim was: "So many on the left tried to convince us that this Russia story was bogus".

I sure am not responsible for what others say on other websites, nor should I be expected to monitor what crazies -- or those with hidden agendas -- are saying.

What I am saying here is that I don't see that "So many on the left tried to convince us that this Russia story was bogus".

That statement is an untrue generalization.

[yardwork]

54. That's your opinion. Others disagree.

[bettyellen]

60. I do. Because they basically ran this place before being given the ultimatum to stop trashing our

Last edited Sun Jul 23, 2017, 03:24 PM - Edit history (1)

Nominee. They denied that story here- under guise of being "better Dems" than real ones.
This is something that you still see here to this day.

And no I'm not going to get alerted on to make you happy. That you've ignored the bulk of responses naming 8 sources and pretend there were only two named is enough to show me you're playing a shitty game.

[Akamai]

92. Wow -- people sure get angry sometimes when they're accusations are nonsense!

[bettyellen]

94. You ignored the majority of answers people gave you and pretend no one replied. You're full of it...

You're gaslighting and being deliberately obtuse in order to divide people. It's not working.

[Gothmog]

139. I am also amused and agree with your analysis

[Akamai]

140. I think you are full of warm to hot air. You are guilty of

confirmation bias, as we all are susceptible to.

If you really want to believe in something, it's almost impossible to talk you out of it, like global warming deniers, or people who say they believe Obama was born outside the US.

Psychologist in Toronto, Kang Lee, talked about "blue lies." These are the lies that groups of people tell even though they aren't sure are true, like Obama being born outside the US.

Blue lies help maintain the inner group, and group members tell them even they knew they were untrue, and I think that's what is happening here -- that people here know that not many lefties dispute Russian involvement in the election, but you have your team and are sticking to it.

[bettyellen]

151. So you're sticking w "no, you are!!" More content free blathering on.

[Gothmog]

138. The idiots on JPR claim to be the left

Many of the idiots on the JPR board used to post here but left due to their love of Putin and hatred of the Democratic Party

[Gothmog]

137. The DUers who left to form that site hated Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party

I do not miss the posters who left DU to form JPR. The hatred of the Democratic Party and the love of Putin/Russia on that site is sad

[BannonsLiver]

155. I love the moving of the goal posts

"Show me someone from the left who has said Russia is nothing"

Evidenced presented. JPR.

"Ok, so show me someone else who said it from the left."

[bettyellen]

159. And saying he got two examples when it was 7-8, what a bunko artist

[Tom Rinaldo]

125. I don't let them define "The Left" but if you take their word for it that's the answer you'll get

At least from most of the active posters there, and we are talking a few dozen people when you get down to that level. I can accept they represent a faction that is positioned on the left of the American spectrum, like the John Birch Society represents a faction of the "Conservative movement" perfhaps.

But Sherod Brown and Elizabeth Warren and Robert Reich and Al Sharpton are all part of "the Left" in America the way most people define it. When Bernie Sanders ran in the primaries he got over 13 million votes, if you factor in that both he and Hillary would have gotten a whole lot more "votes" if all the states had primaries instead of caucuses, he easily would have gotten more than 15 million votes in primaries alone. A whole lot of voters don't bother to vote in primaries of course and a much higher percentage vote in the general election in presidential years. And yet Jill Stein got less than a million and a half votes in the General. Let her claim to be on the left, but clearly so is Bernie Sanders. That means that the overwhelming majority of Sanders type leftists refused to back Stein. And those are just the ones who favored Bernie over Hillary. That doesn't count Biden type leftists or Brown type leftists. The left pretty conclusively rejected the message of those like Stein over voting for Hillary last November.

[Gothmog]

135. I do not consider the idiots on JPR to be democrats or necessarily liberals

The idiots on JPR are blinded by hate but the topic of this thread is whether many people on the left tried to deny the Russia story, There are more than one Russia loving thread on JPR every day on the greatest page and several others on the other threads. The number of Russian lovers who are denying any relationship between Trump and Russia is amazing.

The idiots on JPR claim to be on the left and their denial of reality is clear. Again, the question asked in the OP is about people on the left denying Russia and that whole website is dedicated to loving Russia and Putin. I do not miss the idiots who left this board for that board.

[Tom Rinaldo]

142. Fair enough

I suppose then it is a matter of how one defines "many". Clearly some "people on the left tried to deny the Russia story" People have named some of those who to varying degrees have done that. Personally I don't think they add up to "so many" in a nation of near infinite amounts of pundits and the like supposedly occupying every point on the political spectrum. I have known well the types you speak of over the decades, the ones who almost reflexively ascribe negative motivations to every aspect of our foreign policy while seldom if ever questioning the motivations of other international players. I just think it's a (mostly) unintentional form of "rad baiting" to assign those voices the mantle of "The American Left" without keeping it in a realistic perspective of where they stand vis a vis others who define themselves as being on the left.

[bettyellen]

9. Many have disputed and downplayed it. Seems mostly related to Clinton hate.

I have agreed time believing you've not run across this. I have al over the net as well as in real life

[Akamai]

11. Bettyellen -- I have not seen it from liberals and lefties or

From Bernie supporters.

Any quotes from prominent lefties?

[bettyellen]

16. I'm surprised you're still asking after getting so many sources

replying to your question. Are you just going to pretend no one answered in detail? Is this flypaper to get alerted on for attacking Dems, or some other game?

[Akamai]

18. I guess my eyes stay broken. But what names were given?

Assertions without proof can be disregarded.

Again, what names? What statements? And what proof do you have that many lefties doubted Russian involved?

[bettyellen]

21. Your assertation should be ignored now that you've had 5-6 replies you've chosen to ignore.

Pretty obvs that this wasn't a straight question and you're obsessed with getting more people to name more names.

This OP is stoking division quite purposefully, and you're not engaging honestly with the replies you have so far.
Fairly transparent what's happening here. No thanks.

[Akamai]

22. Two names given --The Nation and Jill Stein. Neither of them are lefty speakers.

Pretty diaphonous, weak reasoning.

[bettyellen]

24. Seven names of groups and individuals were given, not two. Fairly dishonest claim

For someone who thinks they gets to decide what is true or not. Totally dishonest.

[mitch96]

129. diaphonous

Ah... good word.. I had to look that one up!! thanks..
m

[Akamai]

130. I wasn't sure I spelled it correctly. I take after Mark Twain who said, "If you can think of only

one way to spell a word, that shows a lack of creativity."

[yardwork]

26. It is. You're being sealioned.

[bettyellen]

30. Somehow they missed seeing 5/7 answers they were "looking for" so yeah I don't buy it.....

Never heard "sea ottered" before?

[yardwork]

36. Oops! The term is sealioning. I'll correct.

Google it. Sorry I can't paste links easily.

[emulatorloo]

81. We're also being gaslighted. Told something we know happened "never happened"

Thanks for pointing to the term "sealioning". Had not heard that term before, applies well.

[sweetloukillbot]

116. Here's the original cartoon...

Sea lions, man....

[yardwork]

127. Exactly!

[Akamai]

131. Very cute!

[Chevy]

52. Van Jones perhaps? Nina Turner?

Please don't be coy the Intercept and TYT have been down playing it totally and there are quite a few here who live by those publications.

[Akamai]

55. I didn't hear that Van Jones or Turner said there was no Russian involvement.

But is that the same as "So many on the left tried to convince us that this Russia story was bogus"????

I don't think so!

[Chevy]

61. Then you haven't been paying attention

or choose not to.

[bettyellen]

95. You didn't see the other 5-6 people listed for you either. What's going on that you don't see what's

Right in front of you? You have more than a half dozen examples and claim you have seen none. LOL.

[Akamai]

115. You seem point out fewer than 10 people of the hundreds and thousands of lefty activists,

And you claim to think that this infinitesimal number is equivalent to ""So many on the left."

Where I come from, well less than 10--or even 100--hardly or equivalent to "so many on the left".

[bettyellen]

118. Each one of them has thousands of people propping them up and spreading their message ....

You want to argue over how many is many? I don't.

Any amount of that bullshit is too much. And pretending it's not a thing because "you haven't seen it" when it's right in front of your face is bullshit.

[Ninsianna]

132. Um, it's not coming from liberals, it is coming from the denizens of JPR,

if you've been over there, you've seen it.

[m-lekktor]

110. I see it all the time and everywhere on the internet.

Leftists who don't care for the Democrats are skeptical.

[aikoaiko]

10. I think two things get conflated in these types of discussions

1. Russian actions of hacking DNC emails and distributing them.

2. The effectiveness of item 1 as the causal reason for HRC not winning the electoral college.

Given the consistency of reports #1 is undeniable.

However, no one has really been able to measure the impact of #2 according to 538 because the emails were released slowly and it's not clear how they would make things worse for HRC.

I think when people are skeptical about #2 some people think they are denying #1 but they are not.

[Akamai]

13. How does this go to the claim that many lefties doubted that

Russia interfered in the election?

[aikoaiko]

17. I edited my post a bit to make it clearer, I hope.

I suppose the issue is what people mean by interfere. Actions versus impact.

[Akamai]

20. Your wording is unclear and again the assertion made

Was that many lefties doubted Russian involvement.

I would like proof of that, not just more assertions.

[aikoaiko]

51. I'm saying that not many lefties doubted Russian involvement

But some have doubted the impacted of that involvement.

When some people hear a leftie doubt the impact of Russian involvement, some people think the lefties are doubting there was any Russian involvement.

[Akamai]

65. Well, the claim is that "many on the left", and sometimes, probably, their words are

used to broadbrush a lot of people.

The utter majority of lefties I talk to, that I read, know Russian involvement took place.

I sure don't let one or two people speak for the whole lefty movement.

Nina Turner says the issue is important, but there are other issues too -- like jobs.http://www.mediaite.com/online/no-one-in-ohio-is-asking-about-russia-nina-turner-says-voters-care-more-about-jobs/

Van Jones clarifies his twitter statement here: http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/29/opinions/much-ado-about-nothing-burger-van-jones/index.html

[bettyellen]

98. When the loss is razor thin, anything could have tipped it.

[leftstreet]

14. +1

in a nutshell

[bettyellen]

19. I think when you look at analysis of the coverage and see that email was number one it's

Plain to see it was weaponized. What makes it difficult is that the press and some well meaning people were also in the mix. But when you see the structured way they had bots pushing those stories in a very orchestrated way it's scary, they kept taking over the first few pages of google search and buried real news- and they used sceinetifuc menthods to do it. They took control of the media. It's no small thing. I know a lot of people that fell for it would like to pretend it was.

[Akamai]

29. The charge made was: "So many on the left tried to convince us that this Russia story was bogus."

Where are the "so many on the left" that this accusation speaks of?

"so many on the left" certainly suggests a large portion of lefties -- I see no indication of that but I do see from time to time people trying to bask lefties, especially (in my mind) Bernie supporters.

Division is harmful to Democrats, and statements such as "So many on the left tried to convince us that this Russia story was bogus" are divisive and I think not true.

[bettyellen]

32. You missed 5 out of the 7 listed so perhaps read more carefully? Or don't. Really couldn't care less

[aikoaiko]

63. Yes it was much more than DNC emails.

And I don't want to reopen the debate on the impact of Russian actions here, but simply note that a legit debate on the impact of Russia's actions is sometimes assumed to imply a denial of those actions (which I don't think is true in most cases).

[Egnever]

33. It was more than the emails

Much much more.

[peggysue2]

43. Yes!

x 1000.

[yardwork]

48. The Russians funded Cambridge Analytica to pinpoint propaganda.

The emails were just one small part. The more effective arm of propaganda appears to have been in dividing and disheartening Democratic voters. I know highly progressive people who were convinced that Hillary was evil by false information dropped on their Facebook feeds and Reddit sites and other social media sites.

One example is the pervasive myth that Hillary "stole" the California primary. The "evidence" is that her campaign held fundraisers.

[aikoaiko]

59. Well I can't argue against anecdotal evidence.

But the issue is whether that false info caused them not to vote for HRC or would they have not voted for her anyway in sufficient numbers to change the EC result.

Yes, there was more than emails.


My point is not to rehash that debate, but to say that a legit debate on impact is conflated with the denial of Any Russian actions.

[yardwork]

72. At this point all we have is the choice of whether or not to pursue leads.

Anecdotal evidence doesn't prove anything, but we can - as citizens and as a political party - insist that evidence be investigated. I see arguments against this all over social media. I see lefties almost hysterical at the thought that we should investigate Russian involvement. That smells like propaganda to me.

Just my opinion.

[aikoaiko]

88. I agee. Russians interference or attempts to interfere

...must be investigated and made transparent so that it can be defended against the next time, the guilty can be held accountable as best as possible, and colliding Americans are prosecuted.

[yardwork]

103. I'm in strong agreement.

[yardwork]

25. I saw and am seeing it with my own eyes, so yes.

[Akamai]

31. Where are you seeing it? Here on DU? Huffpo? MSNBC? where?

[Akamai]

38. You have names of prominent lefties who are saying Russia was not involved?

[yardwork]

41. You're talking to yourself. Interesting.

[Akamai]

93. Well, you know one thought leads on to another. Or do you have one thought and turn off your brain?

I don't think so. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[yardwork]

40. All those places and more.

What's the purpose of this thread?

[Akamai]

46. to get at the truth. Seems to me your yard needs your shovel. Any specifics? Course not.

[yardwork]

50. Textbook. /nt

[bettyellen]

35. I see people denying Russian involvement, and others denying people are saying that! LOL. Twisted.

[YCHDT]

39. Ding ding ding ding

[Akamai]

47. The claim was: "So many on the left tried to convince us that this Russia story was bogus".

What lefties?

[bettyellen]

49. You've only seen 2 out of the 7-8 listed so you're doing a real shit job of "finding out"

Yet you persist pretending you want answers.

[demmiblue]

28. I haven't seen it.

[Akamai]

34. Me too. No unicorns here, far as I can tell. Of course there might be bots or others trying to

divide us, but I don't see signs that "So many on the left tried to convince us that this Russia story was bogus".

[YCHDT]

42. I have ... Plenty of blaming DNC and Clinton vs Russia and voter suppression

[YCHDT]

37. YES!!! BY PLACING ONUS OF BLAMING CLINTON AND DNC !!!!

[Akamai]

44. the election was sure stolen from Clinton -- doubt about that. With Comey, Russian interference, a

bullshit media coverage, jerks who wanted to make a horse race out of it.

But what group of prominent lefties doubted Russian interference?

[Docreed2003]

57. Jill Stein...if you consider her a lefty

[Akamai]

68. She is an opportunist who let Hillary lose. She's no lefty, I think

But where are the "So many on the left [who] tried to convince us that this Russia story was bogus"

[Docreed2003]

69. That's why I used the qualifier "if you consider her left"

I, personally, think she's an opportunist and a part of the whole Russian attack. But that's just me

[peggysue2]

67. Exactly.

Groups discussed recently on this thread:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9345945

People of the 'you must bend a knee to us.'

Or how about Glenn Greenwald and his ardent followers?

Stop it already.

People claiming to be on the far left and refuting Russian involvement are not Democrats; they're apologists and admirers of authoritarian rule. They just want that 'rule' to be in their own image. These are the Breitbarts of the Left, eager to find fault and blame the Democratic Party for everything. We cannot allow extremists on either side of the aisle to write the narrative, nor be distracted by one simple fact:

Trump and his cabal are the enemy, the clear and present danger.

All energy needs to be directed to upending a dangerous, unhinged man and his acolytes by winning in 2018. Extremists and apologists are not our friends, regardless of who they claim to be. Fighting among ourselves is ultimately self-defeating.

And it's what the other side of this equation really, really wants.

[yardwork]

75. Well said.

[MBS]

56. Jill Stein and Katrina van der Heuvel's (The Nation) husband Stephen Cohen.

Cohen has been a bizarre apologist for Putin's invasion of Crimea/Ukraine, etc.
I've often wondered if he's on the Kremlin payroll, too.

And old lefties who might still be under the misapprehension that the current Russian government is pro-worker or socialist in any way.

[Akamai]

66. I don't know the reasoning of Katrina, her husband, Cohn, or Greenwald. But the following might be

of interest:

"Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders told CNN that he thinks the “evidence is overwhelming” that “Russia did play a very harmful role, [an] unacceptable role” in the election, and that hacking the Democratic National Committee was Russia’s way of helping to “elect a candidate of their choice…[and] also an effort to try to undermine in a significant way American democracy.”

I agree with his views but note that he very strongly supported Hillary in the general election.

[workinclasszero]

58. Jill Stein

Putin, Stein and Trump's bagman Flynn having a high old time in Moscow.

Nothing to see here huh?

[David__77]

62. I believe that there are policy disagreements on how US should relate to the Russian state.

For instance, should there be cooperation in certain areas, should there be sanctions, etc. I think that those disagreements are much more important than beliefs about the nature of intervention by Russian individuals or state agents in the US election.

[yardwork]

74. And I strongly disagree with you about that.

You just described the Trump White House strategy.

[David__77]

85. I think that there are two issues here.

1. The nature of Russian state agent/individual intervention into US election.
2. The nature of Trump campaign collusion with Russian state agent/individual intervention into US election.

I was speaking to issue #1. Issue #2 is something else, in my opinion.

[rock]

70. "So many"

Now there's a nice totally indefinite number. I believe a more accurate (indefinite) number would be "very few".

[Akamai]

89. Yup! that is my belief, unless there are facts proving otherwise.

[Starry Messenger]

71. It's Glenn Greenwald's entire industry

[yardwork]

73. Thank you.

[emulatorloo]

82. "Glenn Greenwald, Tucker Carlson Unite to Dismiss Russian Hacking Allegations"

Glenn Greenwald, Tucker Carlson Unite to Dismiss Russian Hacking Allegations

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/12/glenn-greenwald-tucker-carlson-unite-to-dismiss-russian-hacking-allegations.html

Includes direct quotations and links

Video is here:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/glenn-greenwald-slams-democrats-for-attacks-on-anyone-skeptical-of-cia-russia-assessment/

But of course "none of this ever happened" and you and I are CRAZY

[Starry Messenger]

84. Yep.

I'm mostly on Twitter these days, and Russia Doesn't Matter Twitter is quite a cottage industry. And as you note, makes for some interesting alliances....

[Akamai]

90. Well you can tell Tucker is lying - his lips are moving. And Greewald -- I don't know much about

what motivates him, etc.

[GaryCnf]

76. Can I go through the list

1. The Intercept/Greenwald
2. Wikileaks/Assange
3. Jill Stein
4. JPR subscribers - an easy half+ of whom are bots and the remainder of whom are no more known prominent leftist political figures than we are known prominant Democrats - apologies to the prominent Democrats here but I see most of us as mere members of a community.
5. The Nation and Stephen Cohen
6. TYT

There might be more by the time I am done, but let's look at these. Greenwald and Assange have been nothing more than Russian apologists for as many years as I can remember. TYT are not prominent leftists and as many here have pointed out Cenk may not even be liberal. The non bot population of JPR is a collection of insignificant voices and not a big enough collection to even be called prominent collectively. Stein is not just a fraud when she claims to be a leftist, she's just one person. Cohen fits the long time Putin lover category of Greenwald and Assange but to be fair his wife's publication IS a prominent voice in the liberal community.

Heck, even Common Dreams, which was actually boycotted during the primaries is on top of Russian connection.

How does the small group of actual leftists in this list constitute "many on the left?"

Lay it on this handful of folks till you bury them or educate them, but using them to tar the left in general doesn't work.

[Akamai]

91. Great posting! it doesn't constitute "so many on the left" especially knocking off the first three

of your list with clear conflicts of interest.

[KitSileya]

146. Seems like you've decided that the very act of denying Russian interference

means that they aren't "on the left". If that's your position, it's going to be hard to find anyone "on the left" who denies Russian interference.... and it makes this whole thread a bit disingenuous.

[Akamai]

147. What I am saying is that of the lefty leaders I am aware of, very, very few deny Russian involvement

The proposition was that "so many" lefties denied Russian involvement and I am saying that from what I know, that proposition is wrong.

Those few cited above are certainly not "many" and some of the few have motives that probably compromise their judgement. Further, Van Jones and Nina Turner both acknowledge Russian involvement, but they also want to focus on the destructive policies of trump. I haven't researched in depth the names of those named above nor do I have time to do that. I just know that these few do not constitute "so many."

[LanternWaste]

153. Moving the goalposts of the original premise from "not so many lefties" to "not so many leaders"

Moving the goalposts of the original premise from "not so many lefties" to "not so many leaders" is an additional logical fallacy of yours.

I can certainly understand why you would do so...

(What is the specific number of "so many?" and on what objective measure is that based?)

[Akamai]

157. No changing the goal posts -- just a little careless in not citing the phrase "so many lefties" --

that is the one I meant. I got a little tired of quoting that line but probably should quote again if there is any question about that.

And you're right about the phrase "so many lefties" -- vague, somewhat accusatory, certainly negative, I think.

I would have been much happier if the original poster of that thread had specified what "so many lefties" meant in real numbers (percentages of democrats, thousands or millions of people, etc.), but apparently many people supporting that statement didn't consider that statement to be questionable, didn't ask the number to be defined, etc.

[bettyellen]

96. The problem is they're all self describing themselves as "true lefties" even accusing

Those who disagree as being "centrists" or "neoliberals" or some such. Even Bernie Sanders has had a mixed message on this - saying not to judge even after the first news of DT Jr's meeting came out. I think it's a little late not to judge.

[GaryCnf]

99. Absolutely for those on this list

They claim to be leftists but are not under in objective definition of the word. Their claim to be leftists is every bit as damaging to people like me, actually more damaging to people like me than centrists claiming that the people on the list are leftists. At least with the latter group I can see the political strategy behind it. When Stein claims to be a leftist and then does the Putin dance it's a personal insult to thinking leftists everywhere.

[bettyellen]

106. A lot of people are invested in making HRC look as bad as possible ...

And denying that the Russians had anything to do with it goes along with it. There's always an agenda- what they wanted to be done differently and they're using the electoral loss as a cudgel to promote that agenda.

[GaryCnf]

113. That cannot be denied either

The Hillary bashing is easy to see.

That is why I understand why people who are tired of Sanders Wing-ers laying the 2016 election entirely at Secretary Clinton's or the DNC's feet, a scurrilous and naive accusation, in order to promote a Party more to their liking have no problem lumping Sanders Wing-ers in with the truly detestable Stein in order to promote a Party more to their liking.

I just don't think it's beneficial. We have a great platform that both sides can support. Our energy should go to spreading that message.

[yardwork]

100. My observation is that many, many ordinary people have convinced to ignore Russian interference.

My observation - just one person's observation - is that indeed "many on the left" have been influenced by propaganda to ignore or rationalize Russian interference in our elections.

[JHan]

77. Yes, there was a narrative going in MSM for a while that the whole Russian business is a distraction

And a couple so called left leaning sites come to mind- The Intercept is one. A few writers at TheNation and Salon...Matt Taibibi kept shifting goal posts as more information was revealed etc..

There were interesting takes that Kremlin interference was being politicized by Democrats - if a foreign entity interfered in your elections it is an act of aggression of a political nature, so I don't even get that point.

The meme that Dems are blaming Russia for a "terrible candidate" is the favorite meme of Republicans and Busters alike - which alludes to the Russian thing being "bogus" and a waste of time.

The effect of cyber warfare and a very sophistical disinformation campaign resulted in our own "fifth columns" last year who spouted nonsense like "Voting your conscience" and "support Jill Stein in Dem States" so you can "vote your conscience" ...

I could go on and on..

[emulatorloo]

79. Try Glenn Greenwald of the Intercept. That's one example.

If you dare, skim WayOfTheBern at Reddit. Their will be links there as well as members asserting that.

The jest of the argument is that Democrats fabricated the Russian story to make excuses why they didn't win in 2016.

[NewJeffCT]

149. The same Intercept

that ran an article bashing Kamala Harris recently?

[AngryAmish]

80. I just think we need to call him drumpf more.

[XRubicon]

87. In the words of Dan Aykroyd in Spies Like Us

Chem men'she znaesh', tem lushche.

[hedda_foil]

97. It has looked like fake news to me from day one.

There's only one reason it keeps being dredged up as far as I'm concerned, and that's to create and maintain a rift between the moderates and progressives in the Democratic Party. During the campaign, there was a huge amount of the stuff on both sides of our primary. The Bernie supporters got terrible anti Hilary stories and the Hillary fans got awful Bernie articles. Sometimes there was a nugget of truth in them, but it was always fleshed out and framed to look scandalous. Often, there was no there there at all.

We have been manipulated as fiercely as the Trumpeteers and it's still going on. Most of it now is intended to drive progressives out of the party, but it sure as hell doesn't come from the Dem side. It just gets posted and commented on until it seems like truth. For example, the whole Bernie Bro business was a hoax that may or may not have started with the Hillary campaign.... or from Russia or the right wing PACe. It was weaponized here and on other Democratic oriented sites with a little help from ghost posters. That's what drove so many progressives here to JPR, where they were propagandized up one side and down the other until they can't tell Bill Moyers from Alex Jones. It breaks my heart that some of our smartest and longest term members were turned into right wing mouthpieces. I've been posting with some of these folks for 15 years, and they were never rabid until JPR made them a test case for the effectiveness of propaganda aimed at the left.

We have to recognize when this is happening to us,and we must hang together or be hung out to dry by Donnie and the Oligarch, featuring Vladimir and his Rootin' Tootin' Putin Show.

[Blue_Tires]

102. I don't know if you're trying to wind me up, or if your google game is that weak

Last edited Sun Jul 23, 2017, 04:53 PM - Edit history (1)

I've literally posted enough evidence on DU to fill a phone book... Feel free to search for yourself...

The information is out there, and easy enough for a child to find... I no longer feel any obligation to be someone's free search engine to convert the doubters, comfort the concern trolls, or joust with the bros/antagonists/devil's advocates... I'm out of time and I'm out of patience and the stakes are too high. From now on I'm just putting them on straight ignore...

[mcar]

123. +1000!

This gets tiresome.

[Sunlei]

104. those were social media t(R)olls wearing a blue coat. typical Republican lie to make a fake story.

so typical to hide their Russian collusion.

[malaise]

105. I remember asking if it was possible that Groper Don the Con was planning to steal the election

when he was projecting that if Hillary won it was rigged,

I was told in no uncertain terms that they could not penetrate the system.

When the Con was saying crap like he would win even if he shot someone on Fifth Avenue, it was all part of the Con. They stole it.

[Warpy]

107. whoever said that has his/her left and right confused

Right wingers were the most vocal denialists.

This is just more divide and conquer nonsense spilling over from trolls on Twitter and Farcebook. I would hope DUers wouldn't fall for this rubbish but a few get suckered every single time.

[Akamai]

117. Yup, yup, yup, yup! My reason for posting this title was that earlier today someone on DU

posted a story that tried to convince us "So many on the left tried to convince us that this Russia story was bogus".

I sure didn't see this happening. But thought it was very divisive and unfair to lefties (such as myself).

[sharedvalues]

108. Yes. NYT article before election "No Russia ties seen"

To the extent you think the NYT is left, they certainly tried to convince us there was no Russian story.
While people like Josh Marshall were all over it.

And how many times have you heard "Don't get distracted by this Russia story. Focus on policies!". We need to focus on policies but we can walk and chew gum at the same time and pressure for a Russian investigation too.

[m-lekktor]

109. Leftist opinion writers on Counterpunch and Consortium News, for example, are skeptical.

Leftists who are critical of Democrats and Hillary in particular aren't buying it. It's mostly people who identify and support the Democratic party who do believe it. There are many many leftists out there who don't like the Democrats and believe the Democrats are too far to the right. They believe Democrats are using the Russian thing as an excuse for Hillary losing. That is what they believe. I see it everyday online. I can't believe you haven't seen it.

[Kathy M]

112. Oh I am sure there is a " Russia " story but not what we are being told at this time

[Madam45for2923]

124. Many were begging Putin's tool, Assange, please please release release soon!!!

So some were actually encouraging the Russian interference.

[onecaliberal]

126. Not only no, but fuck no.

[Akamai]

141. Amen! Amen! Absolutely!!

[lunasun]

128. Individuals I know Prev. Sanders Stein voters . They are not major VIPs but it's the same lines

coming from somewhere I am not in tune with.
One I know one line is that Van Jone's said that Russia is a nothing burger
But that is from a video an alt righter made . Sort of faking reality like the planned parent Film he did.
But first, for those of you unfamiliar with James O'Keefe and his misnamed "Project Veritas," here's a helpful recap: James O'Keefe is a notorious con man whose infamy arises from his addiction to pulling the same media stunts, over and over again. He has gotten busted so many times posting fake, doctored videos that his name alone produces eye rolls among well-informed liberals and conservatives alike.
His favorite shtick is secretly taping employees of institutions like NPR, Planned Parenthood and now CNN. Next, he deceptively edits the videos. Then he tricks the right-wing media into spreading his lies.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/29/opinions/much-ado-about-nothing-burger-van-jones/index.html
So the major lefties may really be major righties
But try telling that to the no Russia talk wanted but not RW i am left person
Then they said see he admitted it but is himself a sell out or something
they are a wave sold into some lockstep mantras and even if they hear Van Jones himself they will not change and write off all Russian involvement as not what's important now. Hillary is the only one that wants to talk about Russia to say she was robbed and it's all a distraction the dems shouldn't waste time on it They still are of great distrust of Hillary and tie her to fake stuff. One was talking about how the dems didn't address healthcare in the election . I showed him the dem platform 16 for the election Duh they believe anything that has become one of thier talking points. Why do I know more than one like this?
3 I know even voted for IMO scammer Steis

It is so embarrassing all the ways the Rw factions , LW factions , scammers etc are playing people who would be considered liberal or progressive .

No links but when current dems the ones that they want to primary are spesking they are the ones asking them to not address Russia . This will come up in press conferences of established dems

[sharedvalues]

133. Yes, it is true. "Key Democrats: don't expect evidence of TrumpRussia collusion"

Yes, I know this article is from Glenn Greenwald, but he was one of the "left" trying to convince us that TrumpRussia was bogus.

Greenwald cites Morrell. He distorts what Clapper said (Clapper is clearly on our side now).
He cites two BuzzFeed articles.

https://theintercept.com/2017/03/16/key-democratic-officials-now-warning-base-not-to-expect-evidence-of-trumprussia-collusion/

Moreover, “several committee sources grudgingly say, it feels as though the investigation will be seen as a sham if the Senate doesn’t find a silver bullet connecting Trump and Russian intelligence operatives.” One member told Watkins: “I don’t think the conclusions are going to meet people’s expectations.”

What makes all of this most significant is that officials like Clapper and Morell are trained disinformation agents; Clapper in particular has proven he will lie to advance his interests. Yet even with all the incentive to do so, they are refusing to claim there is evidence of such collusion; in fact, they are expressly urging people to stop thinking it exists. As even the law recognizes, statements that otherwise lack credibility become more believable when they are ones made “against interest.”

Media figures have similarly begun trying to tamp down expectations. Ben Smith, the editor-in-chief of BuzzFeed, which published the Steele dossier, published an article yesterday warning that the Democratic base’s expectation of a smoking gun “is so strong that Twitter and cable news are full of the theories of what my colleague Charlie Warzel calls the Blue Detectives — the left’s new version of Glenn Beck, digital blackboards full of lines and arrows.” Smith added: “It is also a simple fact that while news of Russian actions on Trump’s behalf is clear, hard details of coordination between his aides and Putin’s haven’t emerged.” And Smith’s core warning is this:

Trump’s critics last year were horrified at the rise of “fake news” and the specter of a politics shaped by alternative facts, predominantly on the right. They need to be careful now not to succumb to the same delusional temptations as their political adversaries, and not to sink into a filter bubble which, after all, draws its strength not from conservative or progressive politics but from human nature.

And those of us covering the story and the stew of real information, fantasy, and — now — forgery around it need to continue to report and think clearly about what we know and what we don’t, and to resist the sugar high that comes with telling people exactly what they want to hear.

[nikibatts]

134. Yes. There are videos...oh Lordy, are there videos!

[LanternWaste]

143. Abject blindness to that which doesn't conform our biases is human nature

Abject blindness to that which doesn't conform our biases is human nature. No real surprise you're alleging an inability to see that which has been pointed on this thread as well as many others time and time again.

[Akamai]

144. There were many allegations against those prosecuted in the

Salem Witch Trials.

If course the evidence was nonexistent but mob mentality took over and 20 people were killed.

Evidence -- not breathless accusations -- is what's important.

[Akamai]

145. In terms of examples of confirmation bias, the story of n-rays is pretty instructive and interesting

See Wikipedia's citation on this at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N_ray


"Initial discovery[edit]

"In 1903, Blondlot announced his discovery while working at the University of Nancy and attempting to polarize X-rays. He had perceived changes in the brightness of an electric spark in a spark gap placed in an X-ray beam which he photographed, and he later attributed to the novel form of radiation, naming this the N rays for the University of Nancy.[4] Blondlot, Augustin Charpentier, Arsène d'Arsonval and approximately 120 other scientists in 300 published articles[3] claimed to be able to detect N rays emanating from most substances, including the human body with the peculiar exceptions that they were not emitted by green wood and by some treated metals.[5] Most researchers of the subject at the time used the perceived light of a dim phosphorescent surface as "detectors", although work in the period clearly showed the change in brightness to be a physiological phenomenon rather than some actual change in the level of illumination.[6] Physicists Gustave le Bon and P. Audollet and spiritualist Carl Huter even claimed the discovery as their own,[2] leading to a commission of the Académie des sciences to decide priority.[7]

"Response[edit]

"The "discovery" excited international interest and many physicists worked to replicate the effects. However, the notable physicists Lord Kelvin, William Crookes, Otto Lummer, and Heinrich Rubens failed to do so. Following his own failure, self-described as "wasting a whole morning", the American physicist Robert W. Wood, who had a reputation as a popular "debunker" of nonsense during the period, was prevailed upon by the British journal Nature to travel to Blondlot's laboratory in France to investigate further. Wood suggested that Rubens should go since he had been the most embarrassed when Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany asked him to repeat the French experiments, and then after two weeks Rubens had to report his failure to do so. Rubens, however, felt it would look better if Wood went, since Blondlot had been most polite in answering his many questions.

"In the darkened room during Blondlot's demonstration, Wood surreptitiously removed an essential prism from the experimental apparatus, yet the experimenters still said that they observed N rays. Wood also stealthily swapped a large file that was supposed to be giving off N rays with an inert piece of wood, yet the N rays were still "observed". His report on these investigations were published in Nature,[8] and they suggested that the N rays were a purely subjective phenomenon, with the scientists involved having recorded data that matched their expectations. There is reason to believe that Blondlot in particular was misled by his laboratory assistant, who confirmed all observations.[9] By 1905, no one outside of Nancy believed in N rays, but Blondlot himself is reported to have still been convinced of their existence in 1926.[3] Martin Gardner, referencing Wood's biographer William Seabrook's account of the affair, attributed a subsequent decline in mental health and eventual death of Blondlot to the resulting scandal,[10] but there is evidence that this is at least some exaggeration of the facts.[3]"

******************

One very important take-away from this is the need for careful scientific evidence and also the ease at which one can create expectancies which affect what we see. That is, Blondlot would ask others, "Don't you see this?" and those replicating his results also used that as the question to the other scientists, rather than, "What do you see?" without creating expectancies. And of course there was not random assignment of the n-ray "emitter" being active in one case and not in the other, with the experimenter being blind to when the emitter was in place.

[LanternWaste]

150. I can only conclude your bias outweighs critical though on this topic.

Evidence provided throughout that you ignore. Hence, I can only conclude your bias outweighs critical though on this topic.

As an aside and in regards to the irrelevance your witch-hunt remarks, the Salem Trials were not predicated on mob mentality and hysteria, but rather on family feuds, local resources, the dissolution of a town, and agriculture, regardless of what your walruses are currently breathing.

[Akamai]

160. The reason I mentioned the Salem Witch trials does not go to the

motivation of those persecuting the "withes" but rather the ease at which accusations can be contagious, especially if we deny the importance of evidence.

"Look! Look! She's a witch!" And all too often in countries around the world people are dead, or harmed.

Very easy to lay out a belief and then ask, "Don't you agree with me on this? And if you don't agree, you're ignorant and a terrible person." And by your logic, you don't need proof but the belief by a group of believers that there might be truth, or at least it's somewhat plausible.

Blue Lies refer to statements that the inner core of believers know are false but the believers state them anyway to support group cohesion, to makes progress to some end. An example of this is the lie that Obama was born outside the US.

A milder form of it was the statement "so many on the left tried to convince us that this Russia story was bogus." I think most of the people in support of that position are aware how weak it is.

As for sealioning, tell me things on important matters that I believe are untrue, and I will respond.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

148. Some may not outright be calling it bogus

but I'm hearing some sentiment out there that it's a "distraction" from other things that Trump/GOP are doing and that we shouldn't be focusing so much on it. Of course, if a foreign power meddled in our election process with the help of one of the major party candidates and/or his campaign associates, it is a legitimate concern/problem and SHOULD be investigated and we can all focus on more than one issue at a time. I'm not entirely confident that it's going to get Trump removed from office or if that anybody replacing him would be much of an improvement but if Hillary's e-mail server demanded an FBI investigation and Congressional attention, this surely does. And Republicans would be demanding her head if Hillary and/or associates potentially colluded with another country to help win an election. We know that for sure.

[Akamai]

158. I do believe that if we focus 100% on Russia, many more bad things will get done

By Trump while we are not looking. For example, if we focus 100% on the Russia connection, then we will ignore:

Rolling back Obama care.
Defunding the EPA.
Cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, etc.
Rolling back women's guaranteed protections over their bodies.
An increase in voter disenfranchisement with voter suppression and cross-check.
A takeover of local TV networks by the Sinclair group.
Etc., etc., etc.

I find the Russian involvement very troubling and I'm glad that the sanctions went through the Senate and will go through the house penalizing Russia for the meddling in the last election, but our focus cannot remain 100% on the Russian matter, not with so many opportunities that Trump and his minions have to really hurt people, and with her utter lack of compassion, with the demonstrated greed, etc.

[CrispyQ]

152. My take is that a group of whiners, who are sort of populist, have hijacked the term 'far left.'

Jill Stein, the Jackpiner's, the Bernie Bros - basically anyone who claims to be liberal but voted for Trump or 3rd party. And they have given old time lefites a bad name. That would be folks like you & me, who even though we're not totally happy with the party, we vote democratic all the time. Now we can't complain about the corporatization of the Democratic Party, without being grouped into the far left or alt-left.

Stein has ruined the Greens forever, imo. I once thought they might be a viable 3rd party option that could get some of the non-voters engaged in the process, but fuck 'em.

[DanTex]

154. Depends what you mean by "so many".

And also what you mean by a "major lefty". But there are people on the left trying to argue that the Russia story is bogus. Jill Stein, Glenn Greenwald, some of the people on TYT and other lefty new media, you'll also see it in places like CounterPunch or CommonDreams. You don't see it much on DU anymore now that the rules here are being enforced, but over at JPR there are a bunch of former DUers who believe all sorts of crazy things.

[delisen]

156. Russia-love is like a recurring virus among some of us on the left

For long periods it is dormant but periodically bursts forth to do damage to the intellect.

It took a long time for many on the left to accept that even though Senator McCarthy was a contemptible anti-Constitution self-serving political opportunist, the USSR was never going to be an egalitarian, free society.

Limousine liberal/progressives who like read The Nation will be prone to to back Russia (even though its leadership is now more elitist and money-grubbing than western societies).

I count Katrina as a limousine liberal/progressive. (Although I sometimes think The Nation is just an old-fashioned 1960s style CIA front publication).

[Gothmog]

161. Some denial about Russia on today's greatest page on JPR

The idiots on JPR are firm that Russia did nothing wrong https://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/do-you-believe-in-the-putin-bullshit/