About Russia and $150,000!

Oct 6, 2017

Want a great example of the "Russia messed with our election" horse crap! In the article, "Facebook: Russian-linked accounts bought $150,000 in ads during 2016 race" rather than focusing on "Russian", we should note the paltry $150,000.

Then from the article "Clinton spends twice as much as Trump in losing presidential bid", we find "The Clinton campaign, Democratic Party and pro-Clinton expenditure committees and PACs spent a record $1.2 billion, twice as much as the $600 million laid out by the Trump camp, Republicans and pro-Trump groups."

Despite spending 1.2 billion dollars, the Clinton Democrats want us to believe that it was that $150,000 spent by the supposedly Russian sources that caused Hillary to go down in flames against, IMHO, the worst opposing candidate in the history of the country.

Again, there is no publicly available evidence that Russia did anything significant, so now they are blowing all out of proportion an alleged absolutely insignific...See MoreWant a great example of the "Russia messed with our election" horse crap! In the article, "Facebook: Russian-linked accounts bought $150,000 in ads during 2016 race" rather than focusing on "Russian", we should note the paltry $150,000.

Then from the article "Clinton spends twice as much as Trump in losing presidential bid", we find "The Clinton campaign, Democratic Party and pro-Clinton expenditure committees and PACs spent a record $1.2 billion, twice as much as the $600 million laid out by the Trump camp, Republicans and pro-Trump groups."

Despite spending 1.2 billion dollars, the Clinton Democrats want us to believe that it was that $150,000 spent by the supposedly Russian sources that caused Hillary to go down in flames against, IMHO, the worst opposing candidate in the history of the country.

Again, there is no publicly available evidence that Russia did anything significant, so now they are blowing all out of proportion an alleged absolutely insignificant assertion, and citing it as the reason for Hillary's disaster.

When will Democratic supporters figure out this is a ruse designed to blame Hillary's horrendous loss on something other than Hillary and the issues. This must be, because the DNC democrats do not want to give up the Wall Street money in favor of helping the average American.

Worse, Hillary; after stealing the primary from Bernie, which is worse than the alleged Russia thing; is now blaming her loss on Bernie - as in this Hillary quote, " His (Bernie's) attacks caused lasting damage, making it harder to unify progressives in the general election and paving the way for Trump's 'Crooked Hillary' campaign."

The problem with this witch is, she has no regard for the will of the people! She wanted the presidency even if it meant cheating. Frankly, when you compare what we know she did with the outrage over the alleged action of Russia, she should be in jail!

Then again, America does not put the rich and powerful in jail - no matter what crime they commit.

Comment

(7)

report post

view previous comments

Bob R/CA You're not understanding how the Russians used social media, and how social media works. Consider this:

1) the ads discovered and reported by Facebook were only a tip of the iceberg, 2) the ads were used to test content, and 3) the ads were used to accumulate followers, whereafter the entities were able to then post "organic content" and a...See More

What, Exactly, Were Russians Trying to Do With Those Facebook Ads?

From what we know now, it was too small to seriously influence the election, but too big to be an afterthought.

The Atlantic | theatlantic.com

Oct 10, 2017

report post

Chalky Another article on the Russian active measures campaign.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/10/11/opinions/the-making-of-a-russian-disinformation-campaign-opinion-weiss/index.html

Oct 11, 2017

report post

T.E.C. - Iowa Well Bob, I think you are basically trying to say Americans are stupid. The article argues "With the right material, even a little money can go a long way." First, you are assuming that both the Hillary campaign, which spent 1.2 billion dollars, and the Trump campaign, which spent 600 million dollars, were not smart enough or savvy enough to use th...See MoreWell Bob, I think you are basically trying to say Americans are stupid. The article argues "With the right material, even a little money can go a long way." First, you are assuming that both the Hillary campaign, which spent 1.2 billion dollars, and the Trump campaign, which spent 600 million dollars, were not smart enough or savvy enough to use the internet and social media the way the Russians did with their paltry $150,000.

I mean, you are saying Russians understand how to "drive 'likes' to a page. They (the Russian ads) can be used to get people to watch a video", but Hillary and Trump could not do the same with their resources that collectively were nearly 20,000 times greater than what was allegedly spent by the Russians.

The article also goes on to say, "With a few advertising dollars, one April video ... received more than 27 million views and over 450,000 shares." Notice the "one!" Now you are saying Americans are so stupid that, in the midst of billions of ads, when they saw that one or two ads by the Russians, it was that ad that was the deciding factor in their vote and that turned the election. That thinking is laughable.

This is like arguing that your financial bankruptcy happened because you bought too many lollipops.

Plus, you have not told us if the ads were true or false. Certainly, it cannot be claim that none of the Clinton and/or Trump ads were misleading, designed to enflame racism, or something similar.

My argument is not that the Russians did nothing! No one knows what they did or did not do. I am arguing that there is "still" no publicly available evidence that the Russians did anything "significant." You and others are relying on the word of a government that consistently lies to it citizens.

But a more important question comes from your comment "our enemy, Russia." Just why is Russia our enemy? There is nothing in Russia's foreign policy that threatens America in any way! Russia is not doing military games in the Gulf of Mexico despite the fact that America, with NATO, is doing war games on the Russian border at the historic invasion route for that country.

So tell me, what is Russia's purpose in being our enemy? If you do not know their goal in making us their enemy, perhaps it is America that is looking for an enemy, and America needs an enemy more than Russia. Without Russia as an enemy, the government cannot justify spending nearly a trillion dollars per year on the military industrial complex. Incidentally, Russia spends about 80 billion dollars per year on its military - less than 1/10 of what we spend. Given the facts, a fear of Russia is, IMHO, irrational.

If you believe the Russia crap and it bothers you, stopping Russia will do nothing. It will do nothing, because the same thing can be done by China, Israel, Iran, or any other country. This is all about untraceable money in our elections. You need to start by getting rid of Citizens United. Yet, not a peep from you about that issue!

PS: I will pass on Chalky's article comparing Russia with Nazis, and cite Godwin's Law! Although Bob needs to read this quote "(The ads) rely on the willingness of their targets to be duped or cajoled or simply nudged further in the same dangerous direction they were already heading", and then ask why America was heading in this "dangerous direction?"

PPS: The Russia issue is really about, "Why Hillary lost?" Simply put, Russia is not the reason Hillary lost. She lost because she was a terrible candidate that only won the primary because she cheated - for which she should be in jail!

Oct 11, 2017

report post

Bob R/CA Well there IS evidence of what they did. We may not know ALL they did, because we know they used sock puppets, and it's virtually impossible to discern all of these.

We may not be able to conclusively say a given advertising message changed a vote, but we CAN determine that polls significantly change after the news cycle picks up news sto...See More

Oct 12, 2017

report post

T.E.C. - Iowa Bob, I hope you understand the conclusion that should be drawn from what you wrote.

Start with, "We may not know ALL they did, because we know they used sock puppets, and it's virtually impossible to discern all of these." I have never said that Russia did nothing. However, your statement is affirmation that we do not know what they did. O...See MoreBob, I hope you understand the conclusion that should be drawn from what you wrote.

Start with, "We may not know ALL they did, because we know they used sock puppets, and it's virtually impossible to discern all of these." I have never said that Russia did nothing. However, your statement is affirmation that we do not know what they did. Or, more importantly, if it was really Russia.

Then we have this, "We may not be able to conclusively say a given advertising message changed a vote, but we CAN determine that polls significantly change after the news cycle picks up news stories. . . ." Let us assume that the polls did change. The truth is, you have no clue why they changed. You are just assuming that the change is linked to the variable you want it to be linked to.

Next we find the problem is not really the source of the ads, be it Russia or whatever. The real problem is the ads "were then amplified by the alt-right media, and then crossing over into the mainstream media." At this point, your problem is the corporate monopoly we call the Main Stream Media, and this brings us to a different problem.

The Main Stream Media was against Donald Trump and for Hillary Clinton! And, by the way, they still are!!! Not to say Trump isn't awful; he is! Yet, how is it the Main Stream Media amplified information that damaged the candidate they were supporting?

And again, this is laughable, "the integrity of our democracy." Integrity in our democracy is a fantasy. Face it; your democracy was gone long ago! Before you deal with any minuscule influence the Russian might have had, you need to deal with Israel's lobby, gerrymandering, caging, electronic voting machines, voter suppression laws, and a whole lot more.

IMHO, the truth is, the rich are using their media to sucker you into focusing on a non-issue so that you will not deal with the items I mentioned. In a narrower view, and setting aside spending on the military, the corporate Democrats - that is, the Clinton or DNC democrats, which includes Schumer and Pelosi - are blaming Russia for Hillary's loss, so they can avoid dealing with the real issue. That real issue being that most Americans wanted Hillary to embrace Bernie Sanders' platform, but Hillary and DNC democrats could not do that and still suck up to Wall Street.

Oct 12, 2017

report post