31–40 of 111 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if the United States under the Obama admin (with Secretary Clinton) tried to influence Russian elections. Maybe this is some personal score settling between HRC and Putin. That said, I support better relations with Russia.
I'm all for better relations with Russia too, but only if they give Crimea back. This isn't the 1600s, you can't simply invade a country and make it part of yours.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First, the $100,000 may not be the full spend, it's just the minimum based on what has been identified as false-flag accounts linked to Russia. There may well have been orders of magnitude more spending that has not been identified as false flag accounts (further, it's not even the total expenditure of resources on the false flag accounts, just the part actually spent buying placement—when comparing to campaign spend…
The $100,000 may well have been a small fraction of what was actually spent, but until we have proof the outrage needs to be kept down. We're in real danger of revisiting yellow journalism and creating an even more polarizing political situation.
The outrage isn't about the amount spent, so why should it be kept down absent evidence of greater amount spent.
> We're in real danger of revisiting yellow journalism and creating an even more polarizing political situation.
I see no evidence of the former (at least not on this subject, though I think there are structural reasons to think that that's unlikely to be a useful reference point more generally), and don't see avoiding polarization at all costs as a goal.
This started as "Russia hacked the election" and now we are talking about Russia taking out ads in support of BLM claiming its a psyop? At what point do people just accept the fact that Trump won a democratic election, racists voting or not. The actual campaigns took out billions of $ in ads and campaign ads are never honest, accurate or logical. Who cares about $100k in Russian ads?
Even if everything was above board, at best Trump won exactly because of anti-democratic features of the US Presidential election system. So, in no case did Trump “win a democratic election”.
Main questions and comments that strike me when I see the $100,000 amount is: With Clinton spending $141.7 million and Trump spending $58.8 million on advertising, does that miniscule amount even matter? What was even the CTR with those advertisements? Is there even anything wrong with any country or person(s) doing that or trying to do that since we already have Super PACs and lobbyists? I have more thoughts that ar…
> Is there even anything wrong with any country It's illegal? But you ask good questions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First, the $100,000 may not be the full spend, it's just the minimum based on what has been identified as false-flag accounts linked to Russia. There may well have been orders of magnitude more spending that has not been identified as false flag accounts (further, it's not even the total expenditure of resources on the false flag accounts, just the part actually spent buying placement—when comparing to campaign spend…
The $100,000 may well have been a small fraction of what was actually spent, but until we have proof the outrage needs to be kept down. We're in real danger of revisiting yellow journalism and creating an even more polarizing political situation.
No. If a foreign power attempted to influence one of my country's elections for its own gain, I am outraged. The amount of effort or money spent is quite immaterial to me.
Main questions and comments that strike me when I see the $100,000 amount is: With Clinton spending $141.7 million and Trump spending $58.8 million on advertising, does that miniscule amount even matter? What was even the CTR with those advertisements? Is there even anything wrong with any country or person(s) doing that or trying to do that since we already have Super PACs and lobbyists? I have more thoughts that ar…
This started as "Russia hacked the election" and now we are talking about Russia taking out ads in support of BLM claiming its a psyop? At what point do people just accept the fact that Trump won a democratic election, racists voting or not. The actual campaigns took out billions of $ in ads and campaign ads are never honest, accurate or logical. Who cares about $100k in Russian ads?
I guess you missed the news about their attempted and successful intrusions into state election databases?
Seems right out of Foundations of Geopolitics [1]. > Russia should use its special services within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism, for instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – ex…
Sounds like a surprisingly detailed scenario they've been able to reconstruct based on just $100k of ad spend. It's funny the Russians didn't funnel the money through US based organizations to cover their tracks, it's almost like whoever did this wanted to be discovered. But gosh, why would that be?
Perhaps the $100k was just the Russian government experimenting, and the real dollar values were funneled through shell organizations, or more sinister--with full knowledge and support of the Trump campaign.