Russsian disinformation teams targeted Mueller

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
History will give them a brief mention as a collection of uneducated and emotionally stunted perma-virgins, lashing out on the internet over their own fragile masculinity, by collaborating with a hostile superpower against their own country. A couch-army of useful idiots.

Unfortunately no mention will be given for the obvious closet fascists who exhaust themselves defending his every move, while occasionally covering their tracks by calling him a "piece of shit".

Got to agree with this 100%

I agree. You are both 100% Snuffing Your Own Biased Farts.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
History will give them a brief mention as a collection of uneducated and emotionally stunted perma-virgins, lashing out on the internet over their own fragile masculinity, by collaborating with a hostile superpower against their own country. A couch-army of useful idiots.

1. This geeky persona has existed for 30 years, now. Since the early 90s and in some circles, the mid-80s. It's not a brief "fleeting" persona. It will continue to grow as digitization becomes more and more immersive. The worlds created in webcomics like "Hardcore Leveling Warrior" and "The Legendary Moonlight Sculptor" will become legit. People will jump into their VRMMORPG capsules and live almost their entire life in fantasy lands. It won't go away. It will get larger and larger until

2. Russia isn't a superpower. Russia is not the USSR. I just covered this shitty talking point, yesterday, man. Come on! Stop being the libtard stereotype. 🙂

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think the point I made is pretty clear - Russians could not and did not manipulate the 2016 presidential election with social media ads. They targeted the key battle ground states woefully pitifully and focused on states that didn't matter. The adverts were almost perfectly split down the middle as either pro/anti-Hillary or pro/anti-Trump.

The weakness in my point is that Instagram appears to have been "better targeted" by the Russians than Facebook. And I fully concede this point. However, I will point out that Facebook owns Instagram and the advertising machine is structured the same so there should not be much of a difference in the real world.

Lastly, the Russians WERE successful in rallying anti-Trump protests using these ad campaigns. At the end of the day, Russian adverts got an ROI from anti-Trump strategies. So if we are concerned about Russian meddling in US Political affairs, the best and strongest evidence we have that shows a true interference outcome is the Russians stirring up trouble against Trump because of leftists turning those rallying calls viral (they spread the anti-Trump Russian Ads which called for anti-Trump rallying, into a reality). But you won't read or hear most news outlets talking about Russian adverts being effective anti-Trump tools. The only narrative being peddled right now is "Russia bought the election for Trump" despite this point being false.

I still think the best case is the case Backfire made ages ago. The point was never to get Trump elected. The point was to divide America and make them weaker. Based on that 50-50 split and the anti-Trump rallying Russia did...seems like Backfire's original theory has been thoroughly validated.

I agree with backfires point but it could also be a combination of the two both for trump and weakening the country which has happened.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Dear lord if this was just so abysmally ineffective why spend all the money and go to all the trouble. It gave one side an advantage over the other. If propaganda was a waste of time why continue to do so?

I agree with backfires point but it could also be a combination of the two both for trump and weakening the country which has happened.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Dear lord if this was just so abysmally ineffective why spend all the money and go to all the trouble.

Seems they didn't spend all that much money, though.

And you're asking the same question many online advertising pundits are asking: why put in that effort when it was obvious it would be ineffective?

Multiple firms, not in Russia but in other foreign countries, also bought ads. Why aren't we talking about those?

Originally posted by quanchi112
It gave one side an advantage over the other.

It did not. Not until after Trump was already elected. Then the evidence mounts in favor of being effective for anti-Trump rallying. Which is why I'm leaning more and more to Backfire's position.

Originally posted by quanchi112
If propaganda was a waste of time why continue to do so?

Still the same question as before. With multiple people stating it was to divide and depower the US.

Originally posted by quanchi112
I agree with backfires point but it could also be a combination of the two both for trump and weakening the country which has happened.

Trump most certainly did not benefit, in his election, from Russia's social media posts. No more than Hillary did.

Like I said, I actually went through the ads (and it wasn't hard to do). It was a near even 50-50 split, right down the middle.

^^More dutiful gaslighting

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
^^More dutiful gaslighting

Originally posted by Putinbot1
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I don't get why he does it.

I do

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
I do

Yes. I bet you do find **** very entertaining.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
^^More dutiful gaslighting

Originally posted by Putinbot1
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I don't get why he does it.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
I do

Originally posted by Putinbot1
To **** with people for entertainment is my guess.

If I understand you both correctly, because I take a position that is supported by reality and facts, including doing the ground level research needed to support my position, citing my efforts, and citing pundits who echo the same sentiments (who cite their sources, as well), I'm gaslighting?

Which is more probable: that I spent all that time dismantling a partisan talking point that is demonstrably provable as lies and dishonesty with works cited from credible news sources...

Or

I'm just gaslighting.

Yeah, let's go with #2. I'm just gaslighting that Russia, who was outspent by 1000 times on social media by both Clinton and Trump, stole the election from Hillary and got Trump elected. You have it all figured out. The fact that Russia has been spending money to influence American elections since the 1960s is irrelevant. All that is important is that Orange Man is bad and Orange Man and the USSR are in bed together. Facts don't matter.

🙂

You two love it when my skills are employed against talking points you support. Yes. It's wonderful, great. Helps you solidify your position with a very nice foundation. But when I do it to dismantle talking points you support, that's a huge load of cognitive dissonance, isn't it? It's much harder to just throw "incel" and "Trumptard" at me, isn't it? Not so easy to just dismiss me. But PVS thinks "he's just gaslighting" is good enough to dismiss reality. 😉

Originally posted by dadudemon
If I understand you both correctly, because I take a position that is supported by reality and facts, including doing the ground level research needed to support my position, citing my efforts, and citing pundits who echo the same sentiments (who cite their sources, as well), I'm gaslighting?

Which is more probable: that I spent all that time dismantling a partisan talking point that is demonstrably provable as lies and dishonesty with works cited from credible news sources...

Or

I'm just gaslighting.

Yeah, let's go with #2. I'm just gaslighting that Russia, who was outspent by 1000 times on social media by both Clinton and Trump, stole the election from Hillary and got Trump elected. You have it all figured out. The fact that Russia has been spending money to influence American elections since the 1960s is irrelevant. All that is important is that Orange Man is bad and Orange Man and the USSR are in bed together. Facts don't matter.

🙂

You two love it when my skills are employed against talking points you support. Yes. It's wonderful, great. Helps you solidify your position with a very nice foundation. But when I do it to dismantle talking points you support, that's a huge load of cognitive dissonance, isn't it? It's much harder to just throw "incel" and "Trumptard" at me, isn't it? Not so easy to just dismiss me. But PVS thinks "he's just gaslighting" is good enough to dismiss reality. 😉

Originally posted by Putinbot1
😉 stop ****ing with people DDM

Not applicable.

"He's not serious. He's just gaslighitng. Therefore, his points aren't legit."

Feels like an ad hominem. hmm

Originally posted by dadudemon
Not applicable.

"He's not serious. He's just gaslighitng. Therefore, his points aren't legit."

Feels like an ad hominem. hmm

Originally posted by dadudemon
Seems they didn't spend all that much money, though.

And you're asking the same question many online advertising pundits are asking: why put in that effort when it was obvious it would be ineffective?

Multiple firms, not in Russia but in other foreign countries, also bought ads. Why aren't we talking about those?

It did not. Not until after Trump was already elected. Then the evidence mounts in favor of being effective for anti-Trump rallying. Which is why I'm leaning more and more to Backfire's position.

Still the same question as before. With multiple people stating it was to divide and depower the US.

Trump most certainly did not benefit, in his election, from Russia's social media posts. No more than Hillary did.

Like I said, I actually went through the ads (and it wasn't hard to do). It was a near even 50-50 split, right down the middle.

Weakening our country and making people feel powerless would naturally support the drain the swamp campaign promises of the election. To act like this would not favor Donald Trump when he is the true conspiracy theorist candidate is silly imo.

Which favors trump more than Clinton.

Believe what you want I disagree in the end.

Originally posted by quanchi112
A foreign country influencing our election is the bigger story.

Weakening our country and making people feel powerless would naturally support the drain the swamp campaign promises of the election. To act like this would not favor Donald Trump when he is the true conspiracy theorist candidate is silly imo.

Which favors trump more than Clinton.

Believe what you want I disagree in the end.

Okay. 👆

What if a UK PR firm spent more than Russia to influence the 2016 election?

Should that be the bigger focus than Russia?

Edit - (I don't want you to feel like I'm trying to trap you in typical dadudemon games so I'll be upfront about my question: this in fact is the case but for some reason, we have latched onto Russia.)

Originally posted by dadudemon
Okay. 👆

What if a UK PR firm spent more than Russia to influence the 2016 election?

Should that be the bigger focus than Russia?

Edit - (I don't want you to feel like I'm trying to trap you in typical dadudemon games so I'll be upfront about my question: this in fact is the case but for some reason, we have latched onto Russia.)

never mind the whole "hostile" part. and the coordinated attacks were just, you know...whatever. that's neither here nor there.

I think part of the fear (and Trump himself expresses this imo) over Russia/Putin wanting and helping Trump is that some people think this somehow delegitimizes Trump's win, but it doesn't. People, unless they were forced or coerced in some manner, are still responsible for their own vote regardless of what BS they heard as it's on them to filter through the nonsense as adults.

eg I heard all the nonsense stories and "leaks" just the same, TI alone was making 4-5 'Clinton is evil' threads a day here; I chose to not let those ridiculous stories sway me. Other people (ie retards) believed the anti-Clinton stories from various outlets about pedophile rings in pizza parlors, Clinton mocking rape victims, blood orgies and whatnot.