> Again... The Russian government? Seems to me there is money to be made which is why
> they are advertising. Far more pro-Clinton stuff has come from Russian "sources,"
> which you can't really define.
I had to stop here, "far more"? Can you clarify please? Legitimately curious.
I am now considering revenue from fake news sites, but that does little to explain why you're willing to throw away all federal findings that the accounts now being used to promote #BoycottKeurig were also involved in what they found (not Fake News found) to be actively influencing the election? This wasn't some liberal conspiracy, this happened. Unless this is somehow STILL a liberal conspiracy. Lmk. Either way, there's no money to be made in promoting #BoycottKeurig, so we can dump that.
> Is this even a possibility to you? The division is mostly coming from AMERICAN "journalists"
> that are extremely biased to the left and have poisoned the culture with identity
> politics and false race-narratives. There was an article a few days ago from NYT
> with the headline, "should my children be friends with white people?" I think you're
> pointing your finger in the wrong direction. The Russia conspiracy nonsense just
> serves the interests of the Democratic Party and has little basis in reality.
How does this serve Democrats?
> I find it far more amusing that you've hopped on this Russia should be blamed for
> everything bandwagon.
Not everything, just things they're paying to instigate. It's not a terribly radical consideration, even if it's proven wrong. Just following the money and trends as far as I can.
The info's from Twitter, by the way, they're just the ones putting it on pretty graphs.