Russian Disinformation Teams Hit 126+ million Americans with computers

[Daryl Hunt]

$2 billion was spent on advertising during those campaigns. There's no evidence any of it changed a single vote. Do you think they spent $2B for fun?

The amount of money you spend to achieve a goal does not equate to success. Look at how much Hillary Clinton spent on her campaign to win the WH - you think she spent that money for fun? Yet she still lost.

You can't show a single vote changed by money spent of advertising? WTF?

funny you should mention that. Even today, I see people repeating trash that has been proven that the Russians planted in our society. Now, since it's been proven that the influence happened, how about you proving that it didn't influence even one voters decision on how to vote. The same rules you applied also apply to you.

 

[theHawk]

Russian Disinformation Specialists are lying about public figures on both sides.

They're here, there, and everywhere at American websites.

They hit not only us but also prey on careless journalists who do not validate their information with 100% reliable sources. And they prey on politicians at every level.

They have us at each other's necks, particularly politicians with an axe to grind, access to government money payouts and cutoffs, and careless speech based on absolutely false claims; judicial power; everyone.

The story that agrees with the Washington Post is here: Russian disinformation teams targeted Robert S. Mueller III, says report prepared for Senate.

Do you think you have been victimized by careless journalists? Do you think a politician or judge might not be well-trained enough in the arts of espionage not to know when they've been had?

Let's discuss the ins and outs of political smarm and try to do it in a way that is civil to one another, if we still can.

Please read the article, even if it is limited to only one particular issue initially before it mentions how many of us may have been fooled by something arriving in our mailbox that may fall short of probity.

All Americans are bombarded with disinformation and lies all the time. All you have to do is turn on the TV or talk to your neighbor.

 

[Olde Europe]

$2 billion was spent on advertising during those campaigns. There's no evidence any of it changed a single vote. Do you think they spent $2B for fun?

The amount of money you spend to achieve a goal does not equate to success. Look at how much Hillary Clinton spent on her campaign to win the WH - you think she spent that money for fun? Yet she still lost.

You can't show a single vote changed by money spent of advertising? WTF?

funny you should mention that. Even today, I see people repeating trash that has been proven that the Russians planted in our society. Now, since it's been proven that the influence happened, how about you proving that it didn't influence even one voters decision on how to vote. The same rules you applied also apply to you.

Oh, what the heck, Daryl! It's precisely JM's argument that no one can prove any votes were changed by whatever efforts were put in to change the result. Hence the argument (let's be charitable) that the Russian campaign can be safely ignored as irrelevant because no vote has demonstrably been changed, is preposterous, not to mention invalid. We plainly do not have one world with, and another exact same world but without, Russian interference to make a comparison and count changed votes. So, we have just common sense to assess a plausible rate of change. In conjunction with the slim victory margin in just three swing states, even a slight change might have been hugely relevant.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

$2 billion was spent on advertising during those campaigns. There's no evidence any of it changed a single vote. Do you think they spent $2B for fun?

The amount of money you spend to achieve a goal does not equate to success. Look at how much Hillary Clinton spent on her campaign to win the WH - you think she spent that money for fun? Yet she still lost.

You can't show a single vote changed by money spent of advertising? WTF?

funny you should mention that. Even today, I see people repeating trash that has been proven that the Russians planted in our society. Now, since it's been proven that the influence happened, how about you proving that it didn't influence even one voters decision on how to vote. The same rules you applied also apply to you.

Oh, what the heck, Daryl! It's precisely JM's argument that no one can prove any votes were changed by whatever efforts were put in to change the result. Hence the argument (let's be charitable) that the Russian campaign can be safely ignored as irrelevant because no vote has demonstrably been changed, is preposterous, not to mention invalid. We plainly do not have one world with, and another exact same world but without, Russian interference to make a comparison and count changed votes. So, we have just common sense to assess a plausible rate of change. In conjunction with the slim victory margin in just three swing states, even a slight change might have been hugely relevant.

We can't go back and change the past. We can jail those we can get our hands on that contributed to it though. And we can minimize it in the future. What we don't need is for the crap I keep seeing of the justification using that same Russian Influence information as if it were fact. Yes, Trump should not have been elected. Yes, Trump should have lost to someone else in the Primaries. Could Hillary have won without Trump on the ticket, we'll never know. Could Cruz or some else have won? The sad part is, we never got the chance to find out. No, we can't change the past but we need to guard the future. And JM seems to be harping about how brilliant the "Party of Trump" was ran when in reality, it had a lot of help from the Russians. Best to just stop with that crap and work towards what happens in 2020. And to guard that last vestige of Democracy we have, the Election Process.

 

[Olde Europe]

We can't go back and change the past. We can jail those we can get our hands on that contributed to it though. And we can minimize it in the future. What we don't need is for the crap I keep seeing of the justification using that same Russian Influence information as if it were fact. Yes, Trump should not have been elected. Yes, Trump should have lost to someone else in the Primaries. Could Hillary have won without Trump on the ticket, we'll never know. Could Cruz or some else have won? The sad part is, we never got the chance to find out. No, we can't change the past but we need to guard the future. And JM seems to be harping about how brilliant the "Party of Trump" was ran when in reality, it had a lot of help from the Russians. Best to just stop with that crap and work towards what happens in 2020. And to guard that last vestige of Democracy we have, the Election Process.

I am in no position to speak for JM, but I am pretty sure, you completely misread him, and he'd probably agree with most, if not all, of what you say above. He sure wouldn't heap praise on the Trump campaign.

Again, as far as I've seen, the argument was over whether the Russian influence campaign can be dismissed as irrelevant because no votes can be demonstrated to have been changed. JM argued, it cannot.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

We can't go back and change the past. We can jail those we can get our hands on that contributed to it though. And we can minimize it in the future. What we don't need is for the crap I keep seeing of the justification using that same Russian Influence information as if it were fact. Yes, Trump should not have been elected. Yes, Trump should have lost to someone else in the Primaries. Could Hillary have won without Trump on the ticket, we'll never know. Could Cruz or some else have won? The sad part is, we never got the chance to find out. No, we can't change the past but we need to guard the future. And JM seems to be harping about how brilliant the "Party of Trump" was ran when in reality, it had a lot of help from the Russians. Best to just stop with that crap and work towards what happens in 2020. And to guard that last vestige of Democracy we have, the Election Process.

I am in no position to speak for JM, but I am pretty sure, you completely misread him, and he'd probably agree with most, if not all, of what you say above. He sure wouldn't heap praise on the Trump campaign.

Again, as far as I've seen, the argument was over whether the Russian influence campaign can be dismissed as irrelevant because no votes can be demonstrated to have been changed. JM argued, it cannot.

NO matter how much Trump and his Cronies claimed (which they changed later on) I don't see any evidence of any votes being changed outside of Texas and most of those were corrected to the best of my knowledge. But there was considerable "Influence" that did make a difference in voting.

I advocated a 3rd party. We got one, just not the way we thought we would. We ended up with a 3rd party of "The Party of Trump". The good news is, after this last week, the party of Trump lost a lot of it's heavy hitters in Congress and in the last year, "The Party of Trump" has shrunken quite a bit. There are still quite a few rabid followers but many have gone back to the GOP who I hope finally starts to flex it's muscle. Now, I don't advocate getting rid of Trump before 2020. There is another group that has been propping him up "Religiously". And those are either dupes or real JBS members whom the old GOP tried to block from coming into the GOP. The last thing we need is to have one of those as President. Yes, Gertrude, there ARE worse things than Trump. Plus, if Pence gets bagged (which is a possibility) having trump prevents Guess Who from becoming President which is almost just as bad. Better for the GOP to finally put it's own house in order and start passing Veto Proof Bills.

 

[Uncensored2008]

There's a commie under your bed. Also, a Muslim terrorist. And they are both on food stamps.

Or a JOOOOOOOO Guno...

 

[joaquinmiller]

$2 billion was spent on advertising during those campaigns. There's no evidence any of it changed a single vote. Do you think they spent $2B for fun?

The amount of money you spend to achieve a goal does not equate to success. Look at how much Hillary Clinton spent on her campaign to win the WH - you think she spent that money for fun? Yet she still lost.

You can't show a single vote changed by money spent of advertising? WTF?

funny you should mention that. Even today, I see people repeating trash that has been proven that the Russians planted in our society. Now, since it's been proven that the influence happened, how about you proving that it didn't influence even one voters decision on how to vote. The same rules you applied also apply to you.

You misunderstand.

Perhaps I lacked clarity. Sarcasm doesn't print well.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

$2 billion was spent on advertising during those campaigns. There's no evidence any of it changed a single vote. Do you think they spent $2B for fun?

The amount of money you spend to achieve a goal does not equate to success. Look at how much Hillary Clinton spent on her campaign to win the WH - you think she spent that money for fun? Yet she still lost.

You can't show a single vote changed by money spent of advertising? WTF?

funny you should mention that. Even today, I see people repeating trash that has been proven that the Russians planted in our society. Now, since it's been proven that the influence happened, how about you proving that it didn't influence even one voters decision on how to vote. The same rules you applied also apply to you.

You misunderstand.

Perhaps I lacked clarity. Sarcasm doesn't print well.

As once said by a man much smarter than either of us....."Well, Exxccuuuusssseeeee Mmmmmeeeee".

And by a woman equally much smarter than either of us....."Never mind"