I said that they were ineffective at changing people's votes and had zero effect.
Quote from: gogators! on February 19, 2018, 03:01:53 pmAs for the spending, that is only the amount they know about. Besides, they weren't funding a national campaign. Your comparison and the way you continue to make it is hysterical.That is only the amount YOU know about. There's no basis for you to claim unrevealed magical millions from Russia.They weren't funding a strictly local campaign. You're still talking a drop in the bucket compared to all of the spending. It's not like Hillary was spending tens of millions in Hawaii or Maryland.QuoteRead the indictment.I have. What brilliant reveal are you looking at?QuoteWe are no longer talking about approximately $100,000 (paid in rubles, no less) of advertising grudgingly disclosed by Facebook, but tens of millions of dollars spent over several years to build a broad, sophisticated system that can influence American opinion.Still a drop in the bucket compared to U.S. domestic political advertising. Planned Parenthood spent more than Russia. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/planned-parenthood-2016-election_us_57377096e4b060aa781a7f21Again, you're making a single-variable fallacy. You're assuming that somehow this Russian advertising (On Facebook), somehow OVERWHELMED such things as Hillary collapsing into the back of a van or people just not liking her voice.We went around and around before the election. Did anyone here run in with "DID YOU SEE THIS AD ON FACEBOOK?!?!?!" No one said that. That's not what influenced people.QuotePersuasion and influence via social media cannot be estimated in linear terms; it requires looking at network effects. It is about the impact of a complex media environment with many layers, inputs, voices, amplifiers, and personalities. All of these elements change over time and interact with each other.So anyone trying to tell you there was little impact on political views from the tools the Russians used doesn't know. Because none of us knows. No one has looked. No one knows. That undercuts your claim that they did influence things.From your article:Headline: "Did Russia Affect the 2016 Election? It's Now Undeniable"Article: "4. What impact did it have? We’re only at the beginning of having an answer to this question because we’ve only just begun to ask some of the right questions."Seems to be contradictory.Not to mention the writer-Molly K. McKew (@MollyMcKew) is an expert on information warfare and the narrative architect at New Media Frontier. She advised Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili’s government from 2009 to 2013 and former Moldovan Prime Minister Vlad Filat in 2014-15.Unbiased source!
As for the spending, that is only the amount they know about. Besides, they weren't funding a national campaign. Your comparison and the way you continue to make it is hysterical.
Read the indictment.
We are no longer talking about approximately $100,000 (paid in rubles, no less) of advertising grudgingly disclosed by Facebook, but tens of millions of dollars spent over several years to build a broad, sophisticated system that can influence American opinion.
Persuasion and influence via social media cannot be estimated in linear terms; it requires looking at network effects. It is about the impact of a complex media environment with many layers, inputs, voices, amplifiers, and personalities. All of these elements change over time and interact with each other.So anyone trying to tell you there was little impact on political views from the tools the Russians used doesn't know. Because none of us knows. No one has looked.
Buchanan was dislodged from his position as our nation’s worst president by Trump.
History experts in New York Times op-ed: Trump worst president ever, Obama in top 10https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/02/19/history-experts-new-york-times-op-ed-trump-worst-president-ever-obama-top-10/353024002/QuoteBuchanan was dislodged from his position as our nation’s worst president by Trump.
Black turnout in the 2016 election dropped for the first time in a presidential election in 20 years, according to findings by the Pew Research Center. Turnout fell from a record-high 66.6% in 2012 to 59.6% in 2016, the Pew Research Center found, the largest drop on record for blacks.
It treats this issue as a single-variable, rather than the multi-variable situation it is.
QuoteIt treats this issue as a single-variable, rather than the multi-variable situation it is. So you're saying the 3 pronged attack on state voter rolls, hacked DNC emails, and social media propaganda on behalf of the Russians to help elect Donald Trump is one of those variables?I agree its a multi variable reason why HRC didn't get elected. But to suggest, as you've done emphatically, that the Russians didn't help sway public opinion in the 2016 election is absurd. Access hollywood video where President Trump brags about sexually assaulting women. There is NO DOUBT that its sexual assault. An hour later Wikileaks (Russian intelligence) dumps John Podesta's emails. What should have a been a campaign ending video tape was shadowed by hacked DNC emails, man. Your boy (DJT) bragged about grabbing women by the ***** and miraculously this story is pushed to the back burner (by the "LIBERAL" media) because of DNC emails. But that was just a coincidence wasn't it??? http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/dec/18/john-podesta/its-true-wikileaks-dumped-podesta-emails-hour-afte/
voter turnout was lower
So you're saying the 3 pronged attack on state voter rolls, hacked DNC emails, and social media propaganda on behalf of the Russians to help elect Donald Trump is one of those variables?
An hour later Wikileaks (Russian intelligence) dumps John Podesta's emails.
What should have a been a campaign ending video tape was shadowed by hacked DNC emails, man. Your boy (DJT) bragged about grabbing women by the ***** and miraculously this story is pushed to the back burner (by the "LIBERAL" media) because of DNC emails.
Access hollywood video where President Trump brags about sexually assaulting women. There is NO DOUBT that its sexual assault. An hour later Wikileaks (Russian intelligence) dumps John Podesta's emails.
No, they are. After the release of that tape his odds of winning dropped to 5%, the lowest ever. By election day 20%. (20% is not nothing, but still unlikely.) He got in because of a black swan event. Lost the popular vote by a lot but got in because of the electoral college. And help from the Russians.
The DNC refuses to allow the FBI to investigate its servers.
Hillary lost because of
Quote from: Mr.DeMartino on February 20, 2018, 10:01:06 amvoter turnout was lowerBecause of slander against Clinton. A large number of minorities were tricked into believing both candidates were vile, digusting people, when really it was just Trump. She's not perfect but would have been a lot better for the country and for the world.
Quote from: Mr.DeMartino on February 20, 2018, 11:01:31 amThe DNC refuses to allow the FBI to investigate its servers.Seems like fake news. People can't just ignore an order from the FBI. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jul/11/donald-trump/did-john-podesta-deny-cia-and-fbi-access-dnc-serve/
but obtained access to the forensics from a review of the system performed by CrowdStrike, a third-party cybersecurity firm."We got the forensics from the pros that they hired which -- again, best practice is always to get access to the machines themselves, but this my folks tell me was an appropriate substitute," Comey said.
she was not as charismatic a figure as Obama
Quote from: Mr.DeMartino on February 20, 2018, 11:11:33 amHillary lost because ofthe electoral college. A stupid archaic system that's hard to get rid of. She won the popular vote by a huge amount. Millions of votes. The will of the people should be respected. (Surveys dating back to forever show the majority of the public would prefer a popular vote selection over the electoral college.)
Russians + human stupidity + electoral college = president trump
How the f can someone lose the popular vote but become president? So stupid. Crap system.
Quote from: Mr.DeMartino on February 20, 2018, 11:20:13 amshe was not as charismatic a figure as ObamaAbsolutely. Trump was a far more charismatic campaigner than her. But that's not the same as running a country. Marketing yourself / tearing down others to win an election doesn't translate into being the best person for the job of leader of the free world.