Slashdot Mirror
Pretty Clear GRU's Goal Was To Weaken a Future Clinton Presidency, Former Facebook CSO Says (zdnet.com)
Speaking at the TechCrunch Disrupt tech conference this week, former Facebook chief security officer Alex Stamos reflected on his time dealing with fake news and Russian intelligence interference ahead and after the 2016 US presidential election. From a report: The former Facebook security head said "it [was] pretty clear the GRU's goal was to weaken a future Hillary presidency. Putin has a [you know, it's been well-documented] like a personal antipathy towards her and believes that she was behind the protests against him in the 2012 Russian election, and so, the GRU activity was specifically focused on weakening her."
"I think it was less about actually electing Trump," Stamos added. "I find it unlikely that the Russians are better than Nate Silver at predicting elections." What kind of attacks could we expect in the near future? Per Stamos, "Throwing an election one way or another is going to be very difficult for a foreign adversary but throwing any election into chaos is totally doable right now."
"I think it was less about actually electing Trump," Stamos added. "I find it unlikely that the Russians are better than Nate Silver at predicting elections." What kind of attacks could we expect in the near future? Per Stamos, "Throwing an election one way or another is going to be very difficult for a foreign adversary but throwing any election into chaos is totally doable right now."
Install a weak president.
Fair Question: Did Clinton meddle in the Russian election?
... And there's still a ridiculous amount of derangement. Hilldog was a bad candidate who few outside the far left liked. She was caught meddling in her own party's process to boot Bernie. She tried pretending that destroying evidence on her personal email server was an innocent mistake. Worst of all, she pretended to be a saint when she is definitely not. That wolf in sheeps clothing never sat well with me. Look up Hitchens thoughts on her for more things to be unsettled about. Now 2 years later, uncountable hours have gone into trying to shift the blame. When will the Dems admit it was a mistake to have her as the candidate?
It's like saying "what's this CIA abbreviation?"........ this is why the americans get called ignorant :)
The closer an election is, the more a small effect will tip the result. The 2016 election turned out to tilt on 80,000 votes in three states, a very small margin in an election in which 57.6 million people voted.
The Russian campaign contributions had a significant advantage; they didn't even have a need to pretend to truth or accuracy or morality. They were aiming for disruption of America by any means necessary, with no concern for collateral damage.
(and note that your figure of "$100K in ads" is the documented part of the advertising budget for their interference-- we don't have any idea of the full extent of it, but that is only the barest tip of the iceberg, not even including the money spent on trolls and fake grass-roots organizations. The full extent was a lot higher than that, and we have no idea how much higher.)
Sorry, no. She doubled Trump up. Even if you add money for Russian interference.
They're not only creating election turmoil, they're amplifying and exploiting the issues we have in this country. I believe they are partly to blame for all the left-right anger and hate.
So the callousness in which you treat the general population is quite amazing. If the two candidates where identical, you might be right. But this was black vs. white. There was no common ground between the two. If you are saying that 100K of advertising is all it takes to tip someone from black to white, then our "election" process is beyond repair. Really, people made the opinion early on, and disregarded information based on their bias.
This fantasy world that people live in where obviously the Russians are the ONLY reason Trump is president is amazing. Admitting Hillary was a flawed candidate would really help the democrats swing centrists, but instead they prefer to go off the rails.
--WooooHoooo--
On top of that the vast majority of the media companies endorsed Hillary Clinton. 500 newspapers endorsed Hillary Clinton, while only 28 endorsed Trump and an additional 30 newspapers, including USA Today, were outright against Trump.
But the big question is: why did the GRU know where to spend their (up to) $100,000 (including post electoral expenditures), while Hillary Clinton and her staff did not? Probably because it is all an excuse for a very poor performance, after all the money she spent and all the media support she gained.