Comments

1
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nyti…

These are the nefarious adds.

You’re a dumbfuck if you believed them. You’re an even bigger dumbfuck if you believe they influenced the election outcome.

2
@1: No one has any interest in your definition of “nefarious”. We want our laws obeyed, full stop.

(And, we have even less than zero interest in your opinion of what other persons should or should not have believed. Again, we want our laws obeyed. Full stop.)
3
How much influence did these ads actually have? Hardly any probably.

The voters' visceral reactions to Hillary and Donald alone seemed to be the only deciding factors.
4
@2: People are not entitled to their own facts, but they are entitled to their own opinions. Full stop.
6
@2. The law was EVISCERATED when Jesus and Satan arm wrestled for the presidency. “Press like if you want Jesus to win.” (This is a actual Russian advertisement)

Also@2. Do you REALLY want our laws obeyed? Or just the ones you agree with? How about our existing immigration laws? Wanna sign up as an honorary nazi white supremacist kkk member for feeling like those have some value too? Or just keep drinking the dipshit koolaid and acting like everyone is a savage and an idiot who doesn’t agree with you 100%?
8
Do you REALLY want our laws obeyed?

Yes, I REALLY do. (Thanks for the subsequent mishmash of off-topic Nazi-baiting; it shows just how incredibly desperate you must be feeling.)

@3: Nobody cares about your opinion of how ads influence other voters — and your very low opinion of how voters made one recent decision is an excellent reason why we should not care about your opinions. In that vein:

@4: Yes, we’ve seen your idiotic, fact-free opinions on far too many topics already, so you’ve proven your point quite nicely. What neither you nor Muffy are entitled to is your own laws, which is the topic of this post.

Full stop.
9
@8: Own laws?

Stop full.
10
Russia attacked our election with the full force of your 62 year old mother in law who has barely learned how to use Facebook.
11
We should see specific ads that were placed by outside governments or foreign interests to influence our elections. However, I have yet to see any actual evidence citing specific actions from foreign governments that changed the outcome of our election. (If anyone has specific, fact based evidence, please point me to where I can read about it.)

I think the bigger issue has to do with money laundering and influence peddling from both foreign and domestic sources. That's what Mueller is likely investigating and that is what will hopefully bring down the Trump presidency.

As for "foreign" influence. I think we should be looking towards Australian, Rupert Murdoch. His influence in fostering right-wing propaganda has done more damage to this country than any act the Russian may have done.

Finally, if the Democrats continue with the status quo, using neo-McCarthyite tactics to slander critics, while keeping the same people in charge who helped bring us the orange dotard, we are screwed.

12
They also hacked the emails of colin powell, podesta and the dnc, had an army of trolls cook up a bunch of bananas conspiracies based on their contents, and handed the lot of it over to wikileaks, who dribbled them out to a gleeful media who reported all of it without questioning its sheer stupidity over the last month of the campaign. Among other things. And they did so with the knowledge and cooperation of the trump campaign. Of course clinton was a shirt candidate but none of this exactly helped her chances.
13
*shit candidate
14
After the election there were estimates of how much the Wikileaks propaganda hacks affected the vote. Wide uncertainty on the estimates, but it probably tipped several of the close states.

By all reports Putin never expected to win, he just hates Clinton and thought the Panama Papers were a CIA op (were they?) So it's a bit silly to evaluate on whether he happened to get super lucky in Clinton running a dud campaign. Even if she had won, would he have been happy with his results? Probably so.
15
If the American public is so swayed by what someone else says that they have neither the inclination nor mental capacity to get informed, then we really do have bigger problems, like where to get the biggest and best truck for off-roading (that will really just sit in your driveway), which crapper paper is the softest, where to get the best Valentines Day diamond for your partner to “prove your love”, and how much artery-clogging crap the morning shows will tell you that you need to be eating during the Super Bowl (so you can complain about the sad state of healthcare later). It really is irony in its purest form. Liberals really don’t have much confidence nor high opinion of any voter outside of themselves who believe that their group-think is actually the only way to vote, or even think for that matter. This is exactly how communist politics is achieved. (Note: Russian politics is no longer considered “communist” but now considered “socialist” or “socialist states”).
16
@11, @14: Speculative exercises in whether these ads influenced other people’s votes (because we’re just too damned savvy to fall for propaganda, obviously) are worse than useless. Seattle has a full-disclosure law, and political actors must obey it. Full stop.

@15: Thanks for demonstrating so very nicely how exactly those folks who claim to be least affected by propaganda are, in fact, usually the most vulnerable to it.
17
That woman looks like Voldemort.

Full Stop.
18
@16 I didn't say anything about anyone being "too savvy to fall for propaganda.": I simply asked for any specific evidence. I know Seattle has a full disclosure law and I think it's great. I want to see what expenditures were out there during the election. You might think it's useless, but wanting to see evidence is reasonable.

19
@16 I'm not addressing your interests? Please go ahead and ignore me forever, thanks and smooches.
20
Hubris to think American are too smart for it to have had an appreciable effect. Ignorance of evolutionary psychology to think the same emotion-driving manipulative techniques that work to sell shoes, cars, and the national Enquirer didn't affect Americans. And before you say "that's ok, because ads are legal" the difference here is that Nike tells they made the ad... oh and their latest ad campaign also didn't lead to a threat of nuclear holocaust. Here's a great piece on the nuance of the Russian social media mindfuck: https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/j…
21
@18 - I apologize if I gave offense, but I see no value in arguing over the past. I agree with you on the need for more transparency.

@19 - Try reading comprehension sometime. I didn’t say anything about my “interests,” I told you flatly that your speculations were worse than useless.

Please go ahead and ignore me forever, thanks and smooches.

Not a chance. Watching you twist my plain statements and run away from my forthright inquiries is just too much fun. Thanks for the (continuing) laughs.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.