I didn’t buy everything the article linked in the OP espoused.
What I said was thatbthere is too much of a tendency towards deciding the truth is what I believe it to be, and there’s no objective way to know anything.
It’s known trolls sent targeted comms to Trump supporters that were lying stories about Hillary designed to encourage them to come to the polls. It’s known they targeted Hillary voters with stories of how Hillary with the DNC screwed over Bernie in an effort to suppress Dem turnout that might have gone to Hillary.
What’s not known is how effective it was, but if someone wanted to do the analysis to make an educated guess, it could be done.
There’s no question that Hillary as a candidate was ill-matched against Trump…she had vulnerabilities in the Blue Wall that a “dark horse” outsider such as Trump could exploit.
The sad truth is those who claim the Russians manipulated a bunch of dupes into opposing Clinton, tend to be the dupes most susceptiblethat form of manipulation.
“The idea was to undermine democracy, to make Americans lose confidence in democratic institutions and elected officials by turning every crack in our country into a chasm and pitting different race, ethnic groups, religious groups, socioeconomic groups, Second Amendment, abortion rights, whatever it might be where we fight, instead of being a unified front against them.”
This excerpt from the OP link describes Obama and his Alinsky techniques to a Tee.
Well there you go, you rule it true without q shred of evidence, on nothing more than faith in people who told you so. So as we can see, what is true and what is not cannot always be agreed upon. So obviously you would not like to see someone like me in charge of such an agency and I certainly not want someone with your standard of proof in charge of it.
And nary a peep about foreign influence in our elections when virtually every Euro leader weighed in against Trump publicly. Or when Nancy Pelosi was openly holding meetings with the likes of Vincente Fox specifically to formulate plans as to how he and Mexico could help democrats defeat him.
One of the most robust findings in social psychology is that people find ways to believe whatever they want to believe. And the left really want to believe the duping hypothesis. It absolves them from blame and protects them from the need to look in the mirror or figure out what they stand for in the 21st century.
I don’t think it’s an issue of wanting to believe, I think it’s an issue of being conditioned to blindly accept whatever the herd proclaims. I’m not sure they can even comprehend the idea that not everyone viewed Clinton in the same obsequious manner as they did.
