Slashdot Mirror
Senate Report Shows Russia Used Social Media To Support Trump In 2016 (bbc.co.uk)
AmiMoJo shares a report from the BBC: Russia used every major social media platform to influence the 2016 US election, the report claims. New research says YouTube, Tumblr, Instagram and PayPal -- as well as Facebook and Twitter -- were leveraged to spread propaganda. Its authors criticize the "belated and uncoordinated response" by tech firms. It is the first analysis of millions of social media posts provided by Twitter, Google and Facebook to the Senate Intelligence Committee. Russia adapted techniques from digital marketing to target audiences across multiple channels, with a particular focus on targeting conservatives with posts on immigration, race, and gun rights. There were also efforts to undermine the voting power of left-leaning African-American citizens, by spreading misinformation about the electoral process.
"What is clear is that all of the messaging clearly sought to benefit the Republican Party -- and specifically Donald Trump," the report says. "Trump is mentioned most in campaigns targeting conservatives and right-wing voters, where the messaging encouraged these groups to support his campaign. The main groups that could challenge Trump were then provided messaging that sought to confuse, distract and ultimately discourage members from voting."
"What is clear is that all of the messaging clearly sought to benefit the Republican Party -- and specifically Donald Trump," the report says. "Trump is mentioned most in campaigns targeting conservatives and right-wing voters, where the messaging encouraged these groups to support his campaign. The main groups that could challenge Trump were then provided messaging that sought to confuse, distract and ultimately discourage members from voting."
I swear, I've never seen such a longrunning and ineffective damage control campaign for a losing candidate. Is this a sign they really are going to run her again in 2020?
yes, Clinton could have won if she'd just taken Trump seriously. Also if she took notice of how badly beaten up the working class was. Her solution to everything was more education. For a woman who'd spent her entire life living large off the fruits of her education that makes sense. She's a classic left wing, elitest do gooder: she can't understand why folks don't just reach out their hands for all the money out there when it's all so easy. She's literally unable to comprehend that it's not so easy for most of us.
But all that said:
1. She still won the popular vote.
2. She lost by a razor thin margin. So thin that all she needed was to focus a bit more on the rust belt but...
3. By the same token that razor thin margin means that stuff that ordinarily shouldn't have mattered, mattered.
TL;DR; I think Clinton could have won if she tried harder, but I don't think she'd have lost without Russian interference and that last minute Oct surprise from Comey pushing Trump over the edge.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The only people I hear bring her up are Republicans who keep going "Lock Her Up". Whether Trump worked Russia seems important because, you know, if he keeps working with Russia, that's really bad.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
no matter what he does or says or what comes out. Hell, he's mad that he took Pence as his VP because it turns out the Evangelicals will support him no matter what. These same Evangelicals just elected a dead pimp
To me the Russian interference is like a vial of blood in a shark pool. It didn't take much, but without the vial there wouldn't have been a frenzy. And we shouldn't be surprised. Vlad Putin's specialty was information warfare for Christ's sake. It's not like we weren't warned. He saw a weakness (Hilary) and exploited it to weaken us further.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
> Russia funded every divisive movement they could. Black Lives Matter, Muslims for Hillary, etc. Their purpose is psy ops to sow derision in the populace - the same purpose they've had when they've done the exact same thing for the past 75 years. We do the same.
Exactly. Russia is trying to beat the US, not Clinton. They want us fighting with each other instead of beating them at whatever. We just got new confirmation that Russia was running Black Lives Matter ads. Whatever gets Americans fighting Americans, whatever divides us.
> It had zero impact in the election's outcome though. This is all about providing an excuse for Clinton's loss to make her 2020 run more palatable.
Clinton was a really bad candidate, with terrible poll numbers. Of the six "finalists" for the Republican nomination, five of the six beat Clinton in the polls. Only one, Donald Trump, could lose to Clinton, according to polling during the primaries. Trump was also a pretty crappy candidate - the only one who didn't poll better than Clinton during the primaries.
I think the Russian ads probably did what they were designed to do and not much else - they made the election period more partisan, encouraged us to be even less unified, and probably didn't materially affect the election, but there's no way to be 100% sure of what would have happened if things had been different. Wen might have even had a more moderate, less polarizing candidate win. Doubtful though.
1. Yes, there is. It's the total number of votes. It has no legal bearing, but it does exist.
Not only does it not have any legal meaning, it has no practical meaning. Nobody campaigns based on mythical "popular vote" results. If they did, then the "popular vote" results would be different.
No, the only time "popular vote" comes up is when someone LOSES and tries to justify how good they did because a meaningless sum total of the individual votes of all the states proved they should have WON! It's like a college student who flunks a 100 question test because he got only 50 questions right claiming that if the test had only 50 questions he would have gotten an A+. Yeah, if the election was different, the result would be different. So what?
Again, the electoral college is designed to dampen the effects of Democracy in order to protect the power of a landed owning ruling class.
Saying it again doesn't make it true. The electoral college was designed because the founders knew that both the people AND THE STATES had a vested interest in selecting the executive officer of the UNITED STATES. You forget -- we are not one big group of a few hundred million people, we are a confederation of fifty states and a few protectorates. That's why you are confused into thinking you can just add up all the individual votes and think it means something.
2. Yes, it is.
No, I'm sorry, but 304 to 232 is winning with 57% of the vote. That's a 14% difference. Not "razor thin" at all. Any state-level election with that kind of result would be a "landslide" or "a mandate".
Trump won a lot of electoral votes,
Yes, a lot more than Hillary did. He won. Get over it.
If you're a Russian yourself
Yes, if you cannot win an argument using facts, then claim you're being trolled by the Russians and look, come see the repression inherent in the system.
And the rest of your post demonstrates exactly that kind of nonsense. It was funny when Monty Python did it, it's just sad when real people do it.
You can stop it.
Sorry, you don't get a free pass to post nonsense just because you tell me to stop correcting you or try to claim "Russian oppression."
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/16/putin-trump-win-election-2016-722486
07/16/2018 12:07 PM EDT Updated 07/16/2018 03:08 PM EDT
Russian President Vladimir Putin said Monday he wanted President Donald Trump to win the 2016 election because he believed Trump's policies would be more friendly to the Kremlin.
"Yes, I did. Yes, I did. Because he talked about bringing the U.S.-Russia relationship back to normal,” Putin said, standing alongside Trump at a joint news conference.
Putin was asked whether he directed any of his officials to help Trump’s presidential campaign, but Putin appeared to sidestep that part of the question.
Why was it wrong for Russia to try to influence the election in 2016? The reason I arrive at is because Russians aren't allowed to vote in our election, so it's wrong for them to try to influence it.
But by that same reasoning, isn't it also wrong for the two political parties to influence elections for Senators and Congresscritters by shifting money to candidate's campaign that has been raised outside the state or district the candidate is running in? After all, that's money donated by someone who can't vote in that election being used to try to influence it.
So if you carry this outrage over Russian interference to its logical conclusion, you end up with a ban on political parties' unrestricted use of donations. No using money raised in New York to try to influence a Congressional race in Arizona. Money raised in New York has to be used in New York. Only money raised in that Arizona congressional district can be used to influence the race there.
Somehow I suspect the political parties aren't going to see it that way. And their stance is going to be that it's wrong for other people to try to influence races they can't vote in, but it's OK for them to do it.
You are not a member of the elite.
Most of the people who vote (R) aren't doing so because they believe themselves to be part of the privileged few. They believe the Democrats are going to take more of what little they do earn, and give it to people who (in their view) don't deserve it.
Even though I support the lesser of the evils in our two party system, I'm not blind to the idiocy which frequently comes from the left almost as often as it does from the right. A few examples:
Cash for clunkers - Didn't benefit me at all, because the vehicle I wanted to trade in was 1 MPG too efficient to qualify, even though the vehicle I wanted to purchase (a compact economy car) would've resulted in a larger net benefit to the environment, versus the hypothetical situation of someone trading in a vehicle which did qualify, towards the purchase of another gas guzzling SUV. The program didn't take into account fuel efficiency gains of what you intended to purchase, only the inefficiency of your trade-in.
Solar tax rebates - A nice handout to the rich who could afford to have photovoltaics installed on their home.
EV tax rebates - Another handout to the rich. The average hard working American can't afford this shit, with or without the rebate.
The ACA (Obamacare) - Crony capitalism meets healthcare. It is absolutely abhorrent to use taxpayer dollars to subsidize the cost of private insurance, and penalizing people on their taxes if they refused to purchase what is essentially a commercial product truly is unconstitutional. This would be like the RIAA getting a law passed requiring a penalty be paid if you're not subscribed to Spotify/Apple Music/Pandora/etc., because their business model can only work if everyone pays!
Now here's the part where I say despite all this, I still hold my nose and vote (D), because the Republican party's disregard for the environment, moronic trade policies, and pandering to the "religious right" bothers me much more than misuse of my tax dollars (which the Republican party is presently doing in true "hold my beer!" style, anyway).
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
Maybe you can read it the third and fourth time I say it:
>> Only one, Donald Trump, could lose to Clinton, according to polling during the primaries. Trump was also a pretty crappy candidate - the only one who didn't poll better than Clinton during the primaries.
"Oh that's bullshit, Clinton polled better than Trump", you say. Which is exactly what I said - twice. Derp derp indeed.
As I said, during the primary season (February and March), Ted Cruz beat into by 3-5% in the RCP average.
Marco Rubio had her beat 47% to 43%
https://www.realclearpolitics....
Kasich beat Clinton 48% to 41% - a whopping 7.4% lead
https://www.realclearpolitics....
Again, (for the fifth time) Republicans chose the only candidate who had a shot at losing to Clinton.
Yeah, if the election was different, the result would be different. So what?
So what, you ask? If the popular vote result and the electoral college vote result are wildly different, then people may choose to infer that the electoral college vote is no longer fair. That is what is happening. Obviously. Disagree away with their inference, but it's stupid not to acknowledge the importance of questions about whether the voting system is fair and can be improved.
Don't reduce this to a "Hillary vs Trump" fight. The Russians influenced more than the last American elections: for instance, they facilitated Brexit in Britain, and supported Salvini in Italy. I don't think you should reduce the problem to a "Hillary vs Trump" fight. The problem is people being convinced by incendiary propaganda on social networks, and the control of this mechanism by malicious actors. And in this case it was the Russians, but in the future it could very well be others to take advantage of it.