teedubbya wrote:Not that I've seen. As a matter of fact the mainstreams have been very careful to avoid saying just that. You may paraphrase however you like but I've not seen that from anyone credible. Until I do your premise is off. They do and should report on Russian meddling and the investigation however. It's uncomfortable at times how far they go to say there is no proof it swung the election, but mentioning the investigation and proven russian efforts results in folks putting words in their mouths.
Even with the dossier I think they bent way over backwards to not report on the contents or their veracity. Some of the contents have since been proven and then reported.
Buzzfeed etc excepted. The treated it like wikileaks.
I haven't seen Russian meddling credited with winning the election for Trump either. Wouldn't believe it if I had.
But I have been saying consistently for months and months that it won't end up about actual votes, but about actual bought and paid for influence ...and there has been evidence of that since the primaries ended.
anyone that believes various forms of sending messages does not influence people's decisions at all has been a better target than most...decisions that range from what they find appealing in a mate to brands of food, to clothing choices, to...
hence the trillions spent on surveys leading to advertising and marketing campaigns.
wanna coke or a pepsi? why? oh yeah, the taste...HA! good one!