Some of the more than 3,000 ads denounced Donald Trump, others his Democratic challenger Hillary Clinton. Many of the ads, placed by Russians posing as Americans, didn't endorse a specific candidate but spread inflammatory messages on sensitive subjects such as immigration and race to amplify fault lines in American life, targeting users from specific backgrounds and tight races in key states such as Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Virginia. These negative appeals included a group called Fit Black, which urged people to attend “Black Fist Free Self-Defense Classes.” Another from the Army of Jesus encouraged voters to pick a president with “godly morals" with a picture of Jesus arm-wrestling Satan....I looked at a bunch of them. There's a slideshow of 31 at the link. It's a mishmash of stupid. But who knows what weird little thing might tip somebody's vote?
Patterns quickly emerge in sampling the ads. Many of the hundreds of ads placed in April 2016 targeted racial divisions in American society, encouraging African-American political activism by imitating the language and messaging of the Black Lives Matter movement with posts highlighting racist incidents and others the resilience and beauty of the African-American community. A smaller contingent that month targeted conservative Facebook users. Festooned with American flags, they sounded patriotic themes including reverence for the constitution. Still others contained calls for Americans to "take care of our vets, not illegals."...
ADDED: If I believed these ads mattered, I would not support voting as a way to determine who exercises governmental power. But I'm thinking that the Democrats who are making such a big deal out of these ads really don't themselves believe in democracy. They have been going on and on for a year and a half about how Donald Trump shouldn't be President. Personally, I want to believe in democracy, and what I saw back in November 2016 is that the American people voted Donald Trump into office. I accept that he is rightfully President because he won the election. It bothers me tremendously that so many people won't do that. I think they do not believe in democracy. And I know they are leaning very hard into the argument that what happened wasn't real democracy. Look at those stupid ads they've made such a big deal about!
AND: Please don't tell me about Hillary Clinton winning the popular vote. What if Donald Trump had held rallies in upstate New York and various places in California, etc. etc.? He won the election that was held. She won an imaginary election that he wasn't competing in.
पोस्ट्स
२१० टिप्पण्या:
210 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»"Many of the ads, placed by Russians posing as Americans, didn't endorse a specific candidate but spread inflammatory messages on sensitive subjects such as immigration and race to amplify fault lines in American life,"
The modern Democratic Party is a coalition of "liberation" movements created by exactly this sort of agitprop, promulgated by the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
But who knows what weird little thing might tip somebody's vote?
Like a tall black man with a nice crease in his pants leg?
Good lord. Do people still believe these ads mattered at all? Was there some hypothetical group of people who (if they hadn't seen one of these silly ads) would've voted for Hillary, but because they saw a silly Facebook ad(s) they decided to not vote or vote for Trump? And if you believe that, how large do you imagine this group was?
And what, at this point, is showing these ads now accomplishing? I suspect it's not going to accomplish what the Dems hope it will accomplish.
The Democrats are making public asses of themselves by making a big deal about these Facebook ads.
The Democratic Party has become the John Birch Society of the 21st Century.
Right. That Hillary the candidate sucked donkey dick had absolutely nothing to do with it.
It's a mishmash of stupid. But who knows what weird little thing might tip somebody's vote?
*******************
That is an excellent question. I don't watch political ads and wonder who does? And if you do can't you see the manipulation? Don't you feel like your intelligence has been thoroughly insulted?
The Russians AND the consumers of the ads deserve each other.
The Democrats are hoping that Robert "The FBI Whitewasher" Mueller will be able to connect the dots to prove that Carter Page was a key link in giving Vladimir Putin the go-ahead to buy all those ads on Facebook and Twitter.
And Mueller will prove that Donald Trump, Jr., played a key role by advising Natalya Veselnitskaya that it would be better to buy the ads "in the late summer".
"Many of the hundreds of ads placed [by the Russians] in April 2016 targeted racial divisions in American society"
When needs Russians to do that. The Democrats are the varsity when it comes to doing that.
How come nobody is doing anything about the ads on MySpace?
I guess getting microtargeted by those weaponized ads explains why I voted for Mark Zuckerberg.
"Many of the hundreds of ads placed in April 2016 targeted racial divisions in American society, encouraging African-American political activism by imitating the language and messaging of the Black Lives Matter movement with posts highlighting racist incidents and others the resilience and beauty of the African-American community."
You'd almost think the Russians thought Dems are gullible.
They were not wrong. Of course, Dems want to be gulled.
So let me get this straight. Putin colluded with Trump by pushing identity politics to cause the latter’s election? Smart guy, that Vlad Putin. Apparently not so bright the Hillary campaign, which was doing the same thing.
Lemme put it this way. If you let ads on Facebook influence your vote you don’t deserve to and are probably incapable of living in a representative Republic.
The Russian's goal was clearly to sow division and chaos. But they needn't have wasted their time and resources, we got the whole "division and chaos" thing covered pretty well.
So now these ads will get many orders of magnitude more views than they ever received on their Facebook run...
All the Dems' emphasis on Russia has been a source of outrage for me as well, and for many of the same reasons Althouse outlines here.
This whole thing is so pathetic it would be funny if it didn’t have such serious consequences.
”I accept that he is rightfully President because he won the election. It bothers me tremendously that so many people won't do that. I think they do not believe in democracy.”
They believe in democracy so long as they win. Just ask Russ Feingold.
The Democrats are whiners and losers. They spent north of $1Billion dollars in the 2016 Prez election, but somehow lost due to these goofy Russian Facebook ads?
How stupid or delusional do you have to be to believe this rubbish?
The collective butt-hurt will never cease.
Many of the hundreds of ads placed in April 2016 targeted racial divisions in American society, encouraging African-American political activism by imitating the language and messaging of the Black Lives Matter movement with posts highlighting racist incidents
So, exactly like the Democrat's Patron Saint, George Soros--moneyman behind BLM.
With all the claims about "why She lost" I have yet to see a serious survey that asked voters what specifically tipped their vote. Anyone know of one?
If people really cared about the right answer(s) that is what they would be doing.
Big Mike said...
Smart guy, that Vlad Putin.
"Since such ads are our clearest example yet of the ways that personalization and microtargeting — basics in the business of data on the Internet — can be weaponized", Vlad was my write-in for VP, thinking he was Vlad the Impaler finally his real last name.
The hysterical paranoia in that ComPost article by "technology critic" Sara M. Watson is hilarious.
"finally using his real"
I am curious as to how the ads were targeted. Were they targeted at people who would agree with them? If so, then I expect they would have little effect, since they are comically bad. On the other hand, if the ads were actually targeted to be shown to the people most likely to disagree with them, then I could see them adding to polarization.
“ADDED: If I believed these ads mattered, I would not support voting as a way to determine who exercises governmental power. “
Democrats support both propositions listed here.
Some of the more than 3,000 ads denounced Donald Trump,
That pretty much blows up their collusion narrative. Any of them still sticking with it? And since that's the reason, the sole reason, for the Mueller investigation, they just gave the reason for shutting the farce down.
You are right that the Democrats pushing this meme don't believe in democracy. That's why they should be voted out of office.
So the Russians ran ads they thought would rile up both sides. It's a wash then, isn't it? I don't think those ads made much of a difference, considering the amount of money Hillary spent, but if you consider that the Russians wanted to sow hatred and division - well, from their point of view it was money very well spent. The Democrats are giving them exactly what they wanted.
How are people so certain about the motive behind these ads? Might they not just be clickbait, put out there for ad revenue? I see similar junk all the time.
Overt opinions are unlikely to reveal truth.
Such as why a person voted in such a way, or voted when he would not have otherwise.
Much of this is subconscious. Adams is right there.
Yes, it is illegal for non-citizens to vote or donate $$ to a campaign, but it's not illegal to post political stuff on FB, even if you're Russian.
Since I’m not on Facebook, I get a pass for not having been influenced.
Election manipulation = political ads. That's genius.
rehajm wrote:
"Right. That Hillary the candidate sucked donkey dick had absolutely nothing to do with it.
As Inga might point out- right there you demonstrate that you yourself was influenced by the the Facebook ad where it was pointed out that Hillary sucked donkey dick.
Ads aimed at black voters were clearly not pro-Trump.
The Democrats game plan seems to be to get 100% of the black vote and enough of the dead vote to make up for the white men who used to vote D.
Dear Althouse,
I believe that Donald Trump won the election, with the most electoral votes.
Winning the electoral vote is the only thing that matters; "winning the popular vote" is an abstraction not worthy of much serious discussion.
I believe in democracy, and in American democracy, and I see no reason to overturn the 2016 presidential election. I don't even see any evidence of any kind, to merit any discussion of overturning the election.
Display of Russian-backed Facebook ads is a ridiculously inadequate way to prove that the election results ought to be in doubt or in any official jeopardy.
Like you, I accept that Donald Trump is rightfully President because he won the election.
So, Althouse, with all of that agreement, I don't see how I'd rate any sort of Trump Derangement Syndrome moniker. In fairness, you didn't employ that tag with this post. Good for you.
But beyond that agreement, I think that the facts are just as clear:
Donald Trump is a colossal liar; with a remarkably shady history of personal dealings.
Donald Trump is also an amazingly corrupt personal character, who is deserving of precious little personal respect outside of the official deference owed to the Current Occupant of the White House.
Having won the election beyond any reasonable doubt does not insulate Trump from impeachment proceedings if a majority in the House of Representatives should find that the President is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors that have a bearing on his holding that office, and if a supermajority in the Senate finds, after a trial in the chamber, that the evidence supports a conviction and removal from office.
"He won the election that was held. She won an imaginary election that he wasn't competing in."
Amen!
chickelit said...
Since I’m not on Facebook, I get a pass for not having been influenced.
So you think not having been influenced by Facebook is funny, chickelit? I can't imagine what sort of mind thinks like that. I'm not on Facebook either, but I still voted the Zuckerburg/Putin ticket even though I didn't want to. Sad.
@Althouse - I loved your "ADDED" editorials (both of them).
Quite frankly those paragraphs say all that needs to be said about the subject you write about in this post.
"Many of the hundreds of ads placed [by the Russians] in April 2016 targeted racial divisions in American society"
Al Sharpton is a Russian operative?
"Chuck said...
Dear Althouse,
I believe that Donald Trump won the election, with the most electoral votes.
Winning the electoral vote is the only thing that matters; "winning the popular vote" is an abstraction not worthy of much serious discussion.
I believe in democracy, and in American democracy, and I see no reason to overturn the 2016 presidential election. I don't even see any evidence of any kind, to merit any discussion of overturning the election.
Display of Russian-backed Facebook ads is a ridiculously inadequate way to prove that the election results ought to be in doubt or in any official jeopardy.
Like you, I accept that Donald Trump is rightfully President because he won the election.
So, Althouse, with all of that agreement, I don't see how I'd rate any sort of Trump Derangement Syndrome moniker. In fairness, you didn't employ that tag with this post. Good for you.
But beyond that agreement, I think that the facts are just as clear:
Donald Trump is a colossal liar; with a remarkably shady history of personal dealings.
Donald Trump is also an amazingly corrupt personal character, who is deserving of precious little personal respect outside of the official deference owed to the Current Occupant of the White House.
Having won the election beyond any reasonable doubt does not insulate Trump from impeachment proceedings if a majority in the House of Representatives should find that the President is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors that have a bearing on his holding that office, and if a supermajority in the Senate finds, after a trial in the chamber, that the evidence supports a conviction and removal from office."
Another example of why even Chuck's fucking dog hates him.
in 2004 John Kerry lost the popular vote. Not by much, 1.5%, but he STILL got more electoral college votes than Hillary.
She ran to be President of New York and California.
"Having won the election beyond any reasonable doubt does not insulate Trump from impeachment proceedings if a majority in the House of Representatives should find that the President is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors that have a bearing on his holding that office, and if a supermajority in the Senate finds, after a trial in the chamber, that the evidence supports a conviction and removal from office."
This also does not absolve Trump, or any of us, from an asteroid that may very well hit us and obliterate the human species from the planet in a firestorm that the history books have never seen! Such event would have quite a bearing on us, all of us, and not merely the highly duplicitous individual you imagine Trump to be.
Sorry, I thought we were posting entirely hypothetical scenarios with grandiose and faux-legalistic language.
On a related note, when did the Left become so law-and-order and meticulous about its use of legalistic language?
With all the claims about "why She [sic] lost" I have yet to see a serious survey that asked voters what specifically tipped their vote. Anyone know of one?
I don’t have a high opinion of Perez or Ellison, but it’s impossible that the DNC has not run at least one such survey. I can only imagine that it was buried because the survey told them the obvious: that they ran a candidate who was corrupt, corpulent, and wildly out of touch with the electorate.
I note with approval that Trump ran a campaign that was correctly targeted to hold the red states, win the tossup states, and peel light blue states from the Clinton column. Hillary ran a campaign that wasted money and time in states wildly unlikely to fall into her column (e.g., Texas) and failed to put resources into the states nominally in her column, but weakly so (e.g., Michigan). Yet she was supposed to be the more sophisticated politician.
But I'm thinking that the Democrats who are making such a big deal out of these ads really don't themselves believe in democracy. They have been going on and on for a year and a half about how Donald Trump shouldn't be President.
STANDING OVATION. THUNDEROUS APPLAUSE.
Those ads, with their wide variety of targets, on both sides of the major political parties, should be bring American people of all political persuasions together against a common enemy, Russia. But they have not. Why? I think Ms. Althouse explains it well with her close of this post.
-sw
"Having won the election beyond any reasonable doubt does not insulate Trump from impeachment proceedings if a majority in the House of Representatives should find that the President is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors that have a bearing on his holding that office, and if a supermajority in the Senate finds, after a trial in the chamber, that the evidence supports a conviction and removal from office."
Shorter Chuck: I believe in democracy, but if Congress wants to overturn the will of the people it's fine by me!
Claiming that Hillary won because she got more popular votes is like saying you won the football game because you scored more runs.
-sw
Chuck doesn't have a dog- he is too afraid of being bitten.
I find the preamble of Chuck's posts is usually some motherhood and apple pie kind of shield for what he's about to say next.
Invariably, it ends up in a different direction.
Hillary won the popular vote because of 11 counties in California that had more people vote than they had legal voting age residents.
144% of legal voting age residents voted in Los Angeles county.
The electoral college did exactly as it was meant to do. It saved us from a corrupt large state trying to cheat in an election.
Please don't tell me about Hillary Clinton winning the popular vote.
Oh they don't really care about that. If Trump won the popular vote and lost the Electoral College do you think they'd be saying Hillary's Presidency was in any way illegitimate?
Hellllz no.
The dump part of "collusion" is: what could Russia do for Trump that he couldn't do himself? Likewise, why would Russia need Trump's help to try to influence the election?
The Soviets, of course, had a hold over a sizable chunk of Left voters, but they wouldn't have voted for Trump anyway.
Remember the special prosecutor investigating the people from the U.K. who wrote letters to people in Ohio back in 2004 to convince them to vote against George W Bush?
Chuck at 10:50 AM
Donald Trump is also an amazingly corrupt personal character, who is deserving of precious little personal respect outside of the official deference owed to the Current Occupant of the White House.
While Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, she was running a pay-to-play scheme from a computer server in her home. That seems kind of corrupt.
Chuck, I largely agree with your opinion about Donald Trump's character, which is why I voted for Ted Cruz in the New Jersey primary election, even though Trump had essentially won the nomination by then.
However, the circumstances of Trump's victories in the primary and general elections were that the White working-class was transitioning largely from the Democratic to the Republican Party. Trump has turned out to be an effective promoter of that transition.
The White working class has blamed unemployment in the USA on international free trade. I -- like most Republicans -- disagree with that disapproval of free trade, but Trump the demagogue has advocated a stupid policy that has moved enough White working-class voters to vote Republican and enable the Republican Party to occupy the Presidency for four to eight years.
Sometimes massive political developments happen in strange ways.
Despite or because of Trump's character faults, the Republican Party is prospering politically.
I seem to be one of the more prolific never-Trump commenters here (unlike Chuck who did vote for the guy) but I've never written against the legitimacy of the election results or called for Trump's removal from office earlier than January 2021, I think the claims people didn't accept the election results are a little overstated.
The Democrats are demanding a full investigation of all ads and narratives posted on the Internet, visual media, and print media, that may bias Americans' voting choices. This includes the Mexican-influenced New York Times, the globalist influenced Washington Post, the diversity (i.e. color judgments) of PBS, the various "minority" diversity rackets that advertise on television, radio, "independent" newspapers, and public schools; and, of course, the Nobel Peace Prize committee (who are these Europeans?). It's time to appoint a special counsel to investigate Obama spying, Clinton colluding, DNC denying, and diverse "independent" outlets and their foreign directors.
Just enough people wanted Jesus to win that arm-wrestling match to tip the scales.
Democrats are officially antidemocratic now.
I'm thinking that the Democrats who are making such a big deal out of these ads really don't themselves believe in democracy.
The Democrats have given up on more than democracy. They've given up on the whole liberal world view. Democracy, free speech, equal protection of law, due process, equality of the races and sexes, .
That's just off the top of my head.
Pretty sure the Russians have been making similarly ham-handed attempts to sow division here since approximately forever.
Only now it's earth-shattering news, cuz Trump.
Chuck uses 10 line breaks to say Carthago delenda est.
Re: Hillary winning the popular vote
That is like saying I should win the chess match because I had more pieces, even though my opponent had a checkmate. You need to win according to what the victory conditions are, not what you want them to be.
Lemme help all the lawyers here who don’t understand. This ain’t a democracy.
"Despite or because of Trump's character faults, the Republican Party is prospering politically."
Put me in the "because of" camp. The decades-old attack against Republicans is that they're religious hypocrites that want to regulate who and how you have sex. Republicans in races all over the country have seen that evangelicals/religious voters will support a candidate regardless of his personal morality as long as he will enact the other parts of their agenda.
It also helps that religious voters have seen what their previous champions - Romney, Bush, etc. - really think of them (that they're uneducated hicks unworthy of franchise).
Republicans no longer have to pretend to be evangelical to get evangelicals to support them. This frees them of many hypocritical stances, which makes it easier for them to win.
All due to Trump.
"Many of the ads, placed by Russians posing as Americans, didn't endorse a specific candidate but spread inflammatory messages on sensitive subjects such as immigration and race to amplify fault lines in American life,"
How is this different than DNC advertising? Maybe they should be thankful.
A. Althouse - "If I believed these ads mattered, I would not support voting as a way to determine who exercises governmental power". Are you thinking of alternative voting methods (non-Electoral)such as The Hare System and The Borda Count?
(http://bcn.boulder.co.us/government/approvalvote/altvote.html)
How would such a change be implemented in a populace that's been told that "one man, one vote" (forgive the lack of political correctness for old sayings)is the standard of a representative democracy? Would not at least half of the voting public think that such a radical change in methodology simply be the machinations of the opposing half?
Might be worth a standalone post by you!
I assume all the evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors that Chuck and his Democrat allies require are contained in his assertions that "Donald Trump is a colossal liar; with a remarkably shady history of personal dealings....Donald Trump is also an amazingly corrupt personal character, who is deserving of precious little personal respect."
Or as James Comey and his buddies Clapper and Brennan would put it "Donald Trump is morally unfit to serve as President." That's why we have the Super-Constitutional agencies of the FBI, CIA and NSA. To correct the mistakes of the voters.
Worse, they don't believe in the constitution, the rule of law, or the right of others to disagree with them. I see many who think Trump deserves impeachment for the crime of winning.
There is no evidence that any of these ads changed a single vote. Not one!
So instead of simply saying "there is no evidence that these ads changes a single vote" the media does what their democrat masters tells them to do, and says "these Russian ads were viewed over a million times!" They want to give the impression that the ads changed the vote tallies in critical states. There is no evidence, none, that this is what happened.
Somebody should do an in-depth analysis next of all the things Obama's people used US taxpayers' money for to influence elections in the Ukraine and Israel and stop BREXIT.
I think the claims people didn't accept the election results are a little overstated.
Mind if I introduce you to Maxine Waters ?
Yes, good point donald. We are a constitutional republic, not a democracy. But it's somewhat pedantic to point this out as people most often use "democracy" as shorthand for representative government. Consider that no true democracy exists in the world, yet Canada, the US, and most of Europe and the West in general are frequently called democracies.
Western nations are democracies only in contrast to totalitarian states like China, Cuba, Venezuela, etc.
Despite or because of Trump's character faults, the Republican Party is prospering politically.
He is succeeding because of his strengths. He doesn't talk down to the citizenry. He isn't passive when attacked. He doesn't do the passive aggressive diplomatic double speak; he asks for what he wants. He clearly says what he wants to do. He is more autocrat than commissioner, so he can get in the OODA loop of the democrats who have to focus group messaging and hope people stay on plan. He doesn't trust the regulatory state to have his back, and so is thinning the herd, as it were.
We seem to be approaching peak cognitive dissonance. One has to wonder what people expect of a President that isn't being provided.
”I think the claims people didn't accept the election results are a little overstated.”
Have you met our Inga?
Is there anything here but speech? I am serious. I read a lot of stupidity about American politics from Canadians, British, French. This is the crisis? Non-Americans saying things?
”I think the claims people didn't accept the election results are a little overstated.”
Putting the snark aside, this whole Mueller investigation is people not accepting the election results.
Why would we think that Valdimir Putin knew more about the mood of the American electorate than our Wise Political Commentators, the data journalists and others who spent months in 2016 telling us that there was no way, no way in hell, that Hillary Clinton could lose? Could a Kremlin czar who hadn't even visited the US that year organize a more effective strategy than on-the-ground Clinton regulars who organized the most expensive campaing in American history?
According to Politico, Donald Trump won Michigan with 30,000 fewer votes than George W. Bush got when he lost Michigan in 2004.
It's entirely possible that the constant reassurance that Hillary Clinton had the election in the bag caused enough of her lukewarm supporters (of whom there were many) just to stay home on election day. That Donald Trump didn't necessarily win so much as Hillary Clinton lost.
readering channelling Pauline kael.
I'm guessing that most people who voted for Trump decided years ago never to vote for Hillary. Like me. Maybe it was Hillary Care, or Travelgate, or her amazing cattle futures trading profits, or her handling of Bill's "bimbo eruptions. The list goes on and on.
Russian Facebook ads had nothing to do with it.
Many of the hundreds of ads placed in April 2016 targeted racial divisions in American society, encouraging African-American political activism by imitating the language and messaging of the Black Lives Matter movement with posts highlighting racist incidents
Democrats: "Clearly, these ads--saying exactly what we've been saying ourselves for the past few generations; and, in fact, sounding precisely like President Barack Obama himself--are the result of Republican-Russian collusion!!!"
'A smaller contingent that month targeted conservative Facebook users. Festooned with American flags, they sounded patriotic themes including reverence for the constitution. Still others contained calls for Americans to "take care of our vets, not illegals."'
So the Democrats regard urging reverence for the Constitution as a subversive Russian plot. Ok, I guess I can see that. Yeah, actually, that makes perfect sense.
So after all of this. All the wasted news stories. All the hype. All the money spent on investigations, all of that ...
we're left with a bunch of stupid annoying Facebook ads and posts by Internet trolls?
Yeah, there's a BIG threat to democracy. Sheesh.
MS: "Despite or because of Trump's character faults, the Republican Party is prospering politically."
The Republican party prospering is precisely the source of LLR and Noted Racist Commenter Chuck's increasing anger.
Which is why LLR Chuck felt compelled to label highly decorated and praised combat medical vet Admiral Ronny Jackson as a "ricky bobby" while simultaneously LLR Chuck went "all in" on defending the Stolen Valor lies of Democrat Blumenthal.
Does Google's practice of diversity (i.e. race, color, sex, gender)-targeting influence the election?
Do "minority" radio stations transmitting narratives in the foreign languages (e.g. Spanish) influence the election? Do public utilities (e.g. PBS)? Public schools?
The Nobel Peace Prize committee, which certainly swayed a a significant number of voters, should be investigated.
Then there is the post-coup government in Kiev, the British government, and Russian factions, that contributed to the pre-election disorder, and post-inauguration, multi-trimester witch/warlock/baby hunts targeting Americans, immigrants, and aliens.
”I think the claims people didn't accept the election results are a little overstated.”
Yeah, its not like the electors got threatened to change the votes from the will of their constituents or anything.
Fucking retard.
Since basis of the liberal governing philosophy is the belief that people are too stupid to govern themselves, they naturally would think that Facebook ads tipped the scales of the election.
The Democrats are whiners and losers. They spent north of $1Billion dollars in the 2016 Prez election, but somehow lost due to these goofy Russian Facebook ads?
How stupid or delusional do you have to be to believe this rubbish?
Dem partisans aren't analyzing reality to reach conclusions. It's impossible to have honestly reached the conclusion Russian interference had any impact on the election. Instead they are mining for issues they can use to influence the polity. I suppose this is their job although it proves their alleged concern for America is an act.
The key takeaway though is the media complicity. Every story they carry treating the issue as if it's a legitimate concern proves they are the propaganda arm of the Dem Party / political left.
Understand that no part of the public debate in America is real. All of it is just like the Russia campaign: useful to the left in some power struggle which by the media's definition makes it relevant. Consider how the media covers sexual assault (miraculously discovered as soon as it can no longer hurt a Dem leader!) homelessness, inequality, rape culture, waterboarding, and everything else. It all fits.
>>It bothers me tremendously that so many people won't do that. I think they do not believe in democracy
A generation raised on participation trophies and games where no one keeps score can't process losing.
"This game's not over until we win" is not just a slip of the tongue. It's the D's mantra in any close election.
So, this means that Dems are going to push for legislation putting an end to the U.S. government's attempting to subvert other democratic countries' elections/referenda/etc in similar ways? Because that's a really, really bad thing to do, right, running propaganda campaigns in other people's countries?
I definitely would have been totes all-in on the HBeast if only I hadn't seen that sketchy FB ad.
Ann: Perhaps I just missed it, but I wonder if you've engaged with the Russian hacks against the DNC offices. To me, that's the much more damaging interference, way more than these ads. A foreign power committed electronic crime against an American political party, and leaked the results to make them look bad.
If someone had done the same thing to Trump's campaign, they also would have looked terrible. That's the nature of internal communications. But they only did it to one side.
Focusing on the ads they may have placed seems like a bit of a sideshow.
This has got to be the only election that a foreign government has tried to influence. That's proof that Trump in in Putin's pocket.
Of course, the USA has never ever tried to influence a foreign election.
Sorry Bibi.
A foreign power committed electronic crime against an American political party, and leaked the results to make them look bad.
You mean they joined the campaign on the DNC side and downloaded emailed to a thumb drive ?
It's pretty clear that the leak was an inside job, not "hacking."
Seth Rich cannot be reached for comment.
OGWiseman wrote:
"Ann: Perhaps I just missed it, but I wonder if you've engaged with the Russian hacks against the DNC offices. To me, that's the much more damaging interference, way more than these ads."
There is just one problem- there is literally zero evidence that has been released showing the DNC e-mails were hacked by the Russian government. Literally zero. All of the evidence points to the DNC e-mails having been downloaded by an insider at the DNC itself. And anyone could have been the phisher who duped the idiot Podesta, though I suspect that was also an insider operation.
If someone had done the same thing to Trump's campaign, they also would have looked terrible. That's the nature of internal communications. But they only did it to one side.
Only one side used "p@ssword" as its password.
A silly question: How many people did the 3,000 ads reach?
Chuck said...
Having won the election beyond any reasonable doubt does not insulate Trump from impeachment proceedings if a majority in the House of Representatives should find that the President is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors that have a bearing on his holding that office, and if a supermajority in the Senate finds, after a trial in the chamber, that the evidence supports a conviction and removal from office.
If.
The election of Trump was so traumatic for these people, for so many reasons (most of them self-imagined) that they were plunged into the Five Stages of Grief.
Shock lasted the first couple of weeks, then came Denial and Anger.
Now they've pinned their hopes on the Mueller probe; that's Bargaining.
It is very hard to see how someone can, with a straight face, call Donald Trump “amazingly corrupt” after an election that featured Hillary Clinton. Question for anyone who cares to answer: how much money did the Clinton Foundationcollect for Haitian relief, and how much was spent in Haiti?
A silly question: How many people did the 3,000 ads reach?
Even if they reached every person on the planet it still wouldn't have made a difference.
Acceptance comes the day Ivanka Trump is sworn in as President on January 20th 2025.
Trump getting "Hillary Clinton Will Never Be President Of The United States" made the National Motto in December 2015 was a stroke of genius.
OGWiseman at 12:16 PM
I wonder if you've engaged with the Russian hacks against the DNC offices.
The hack in the DNC office was done by an insider using a hand-held device -- most probably Seth Rich -- who took and revealed the e-mails because the DNC was favoring Clinton over Sanders.
No investigating officials want to touch that issue with a ten-foot pole. None of them want to address or even mention that issue.
The investigating officials intend to massively redact every detail of their "proof" that the data was hacked from abroad. They know that if they reveal any such "proof", then it will be torn apart and discredited thoroughly by skeptics who are experts in computer communications and security.
There needs to be a control for this data. How does this compare to foreign placed ads no one has claimed affected the election. By the same criteria were there more/less/different ads placed by, say Chinese linked accounts?
It is easy to pull a made up story from big data by shedding context. Scope is another context lost. How did these ads compare in delivery to all those that were going around.
There is nothing there there.
My favorite? The Russian Facebook ad that told Hillary to avoid campaigning in Wisconsin.
If I had to choose between Russian Trolls, Russian Hookers or Russian Facebook Ads, I think the hookers would hold the most political sway over me.
Might be worth a standalone post by you!
Cough up $1,000 and she said she'll do it. But be sure to ask for the non-Chuck discount.
It looks like LLR Chuck's Blue Wave is fizzling.
No wonder he is so angry.
Hunter: "The election of Trump was so traumatic for these people, for so many reasons (most of them self-imagined) that they were plunged into the Five Stages of Grief.
Shock lasted the first couple of weeks, then came Denial and Anger."
Yep.
See "LLR Chuck" and Maxine Waters.
OGWiseman: "A foreign power committed electronic crime against an American political party, and leaked the results to make them look bad."
LOL
The dems hacked their own primary to ensure the Queen's nomination. Had the dems not weaponized their own processes to support Hillary Bernie would have upset her and as a nation we would have had a contest that more represented the mood of the nation.
Not to worry. Russian/Putin interests coughed up over $140 Million to the Clintons for pay to play so the Clinton's aren't hurting.
But they only did it to one side.
I don't believe this is true. According to the WSJ, the same tactics were used against the RNC. However, Republicans weren't stupid enough to give away their passwords.
Communists have been exploiting race since the time of Martin Luther King. Nothing new here except for the people who are "useful idiots" and don't understand that the world is not life in a rose garden.
At least the Russians had enough sense to buy ads in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
the one true aim and purpose of these ads by the Russians was, and continues to be, to sow discord and division within our democratic systems... to pit both sides against each other in hopes of fomenting strife and weakening our faith in the institutions of government...
And so far, they have done an admirable job... pushing us ever closer to "civil war", which would afford them the greatest chance to "defeat" America over any other gambit...
It's interesting that those on the left are immune to the facts about the wikileak thing.
Do they really know that little about IT ? Maybe so since their leaders were so easily "phished" out of passwords and fooled into giving up big tranches of data. The Obama appointed "First Hispanic women head of OPM" hired a Chinese national as administrator for the personnel files of millions of DoD employees.
They seem to continue to resist the fact that the data transfer rate for the wikileaks files was far too high for an online "hack."
Of course, it could just be unwillingness to accept reality, like the Trump Resistance, but there is a whiff of ignorance about it.
Do Ads work? Not on me. I read too many Mad Magazine exposés.
It's risible to think that ads would sway an election. Democrats look laughably foolish to push this narrative.
Michael K: "It's interesting that those on the left are immune to the facts about the wikileak thing."
The left AND LLR's.
The two groups are synonymous operationally.
It's obvious what they were doing, and it had nothing to do with influencing the election.
They were microtargeting ads in order to get demographic data on people. You target 3 ads aimed at 50 to 70 year old white Women in Madison, WI who earn between $40 to $60K per year. You see Ann Althouse liked or shared one of them within the first few hours of the ad being put up, you find out Ann Althouse earns between $40K and $60K and lives in Madison, WI.
You use politically divisive ads likely to cause a strong desire to reply, like or share. You narrowly define the demographics and locations. You get feedback from a number of people. One of those people is an interesting target. You use your demographic knowledge to tailor phishing or other social engineering attacks against that person.
Here's Cindy that lives in the same town as that GE plant that makes fighter jet engines, she's a very liberal, lesbian, cat owning, single woman with a college degree that is interested in aerospace. Here's Bob that lives in the same city as the NSA office and earns within the GS-11 to GS-12 pay grade but for some reason has a low net worth.
This was a data mining operation for nefarious purpose.
Big Mike said...
It is very hard to see how someone can, with a straight face, call Donald Trump “amazingly corrupt”...
Awwww, that's easy!
You take a guy who cheated on his wife in Tahoe with a porn star, lied about it to everybody in the world except his fixer, who used a fake holding company to pay her off, using "David Dennison" as a pseudonym, made the payment to get her to sign an NDA, lied about it when caught, and then lied some more to completely reverse-engineer a story that didn't trigger criminal violations for bank fraud, wire fraud, and FEC violations.
I don't see how I'd rate any sort of Trump Derangement Syndrome moniker.
Chuck, who has been in a masturbatory rage against Trump for 18 months, and who cannot resist inserting the most irrelevant criticisms of Trump regardless of the actual topic being discussed, questions why he’s the poster child for Trump Derangement Syndrome.
The answer (and I’m typing slowly so Chuck can keep up) is because Chuck is actively and undeniably deranged on all topics Trump.
Yes, he’s rude and crass. But you’re still an even worse person.
well many of the officials were rihard Clarke's crack crew, including the fellow who he had been collaborating with, who ended up a deputy at homeland,
it feels like ground hog day, or that feeling of dejavu, of course the indictment of the concord crew, is based on these same flawed analytics,
Memo to Vlad Putin in advance of 2020 election:
I am a dumb-ass white, blue collar male. I voted for Obama in 2012 and Trump in 2016. I don't follow the news and am angry at something, but I'm not sure what.
I'm inclined to vote for Trump again, because some wall will be built somewhere to keep furners out.
However, I could be persuaded to vote Democrat, if you were to send 3 Russian hookers to my farm this Fall, along with a new John Deere tractor.
Thank you.
Communists have been exploiting race since the time of Martin Luther King. Nothing new here except for the people who are "useful idiots" and don't understand that the world is not life in a rose garden
Japanese spies were hoping to trigger a race war in the US during WWII. They had no success.
Chuck, who has been in a masturbatory rage against Trump for 18 months, and who cannot resist inserting the most irrelevant criticisms of Trump regardless of the actual topic being discussed, questions why he’s the poster child for Trump Derangement Syndrome.
One assumes the stipend he gets from Soros exceeds the income his (ahem) law practice generates.
This is the part in the movie where the U-boat commander orders oil, and debris to be jettisoned, hoping to stop the depth charges.
You take a guy who cheated on his wife in Tahoe with a porn star, lied about it to everybody in the world except his fixer, who used a fake holding company to pay her off, using "David Dennison" as a pseudonym, made the payment to get her to sign an NDA, lied about it when caught, and then lied some more to completely reverse-engineer a story that didn't trigger criminal violations for bank fraud, wire fraud, and FEC violations.
Assumes facts not in evidence.
Objection, Your Honor! That comment is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial...not necessarily in that order.
ummmm......delete the comma after jettisoned
now there are certain connection, that are being drawn re a statement, daniels made in 2009, and possible membership in the nxim cult, which schneiderman, slow walked the investigation on,
Everybody acknowledges that these ads are weak shit. They made no difference to 'me' or
'mine' but could have influenced those 'other' people. These ads don't even qualify
as white noise.
So Zuckerberg and his gang built and drive the get-away car?
Just a note to keep the Pied Piper memo in mind. IF you believe that Putin tipped the winning shot into the basket for Trump at the buzzer, THEN you still have to acknowledge that Putin was standing on a platform constructed by Clinton, her campaign, the DNC, their major contributors in finance, technology, and entertainment, and the MSM. All these people have to be purged before the Democrats can begin to reform themselves.
I think james downeys line in billy Madison is on point,
we know how October surprises have fared in 1992 and 2000, 2008 was something else entirely, as no economic downturn has happened within 60 days of an election, so if daniels was shopping the story around and was getting no bidders in part because she didn't proffer any evidence, the wiser course of valor was to shut it down, because you can't explain the situation in two weeks,
an irony coming from Buzzfeed, which is facing a slander suit in London:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/mitchprothero/heres-what-competitors-think-of-the-company-that-was-hired?utm_term=.feEXrmayN#.puGXA2ykn
"Many of the hundreds of ads... encouraging African-American political activism by imitating the language and messaging of the Black Lives Matter movement"
No wonder Trump won the vast majority of the black vote! How could they vote for Satan-woman Hillary who swore pact against Jesus and all that is holy?
So when do Democrats release the Facebook Ads paid for by Latin American countries to sway our elections? How about disclosure from the New York Times? We wouldn't want Democracy to die in darkness.
Chuck, it's early in the day for this sort of insanity.
Why don't you go for a walk or something ?
OGWiseman said...
Focusing on the ads they may have placed seems like a bit of a sideshow.
I agree, this is a sideshow. It is a sideshow currently being orchestrated by Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee. (They're the ones who released the ads.)
So what are the Democrats trying to distract us from, that makes them look even worse than they look by claiming that these ads had anything to do with anything?
"I would not support voting as a way to determine who exercises governmental power."
I do not know what mattered and what didn't matter for the - can't remember the number -- 30K or 80K(?) votes spread out in MI, Penn and Wisconsin.
I do know what John Adams wrote about democracy and the mob. He was for a republic but not a democrat. One can be a anti-monarchist whig, a lower r-republican, and distrust a populist sensibility.
He did defend the accused after the Boston Massacre.
Maxine Waters and LLR Chuck are becoming more unhinged by the day and that's quite understandable when you look at the state of the democrat party today and the increasing ineffectiveness of the standard lefty/dem/LLR MSM "enhanced narrative torture" deployed against US citizens.
On top of that, Brian Stelter and Maddow and gang have completely pwned themselves so many times they cannot provide the necessary talking point jump-starters that LLR Chuck has always depended upon.
Thus, LLR Chuck is basically "on his own" in advancing lefty narratives and it's become quite clear that our self-described MI electoral "expert" is not capable of effective dem operations on his own.
mind you, niac's parsi, is the official propaganda engine of the regime, they created the echo chamber with ben Rhodes, and cirincione, they managed the surveillance on opponents of the regime, and the unmasking of Flynn, page cohen, et al,
5 top ISIS dirtbags captured in a US/Iraq joint operation. Trump est en fuego this week.
So Trump is alone in a suite with Stormy Daniels. They flirt a bit, but Trump doesn't do her because he can do better than an over-inflated, aging porn star.
Ten years later, on the eve of the presidential election, she makes a blackmail call (that's what it was, don't sugarcoat it). What does Trump do? Arranges an indirect payment to buy her silence with an NDA.
Does this description not fit the facts?
The Russians' plans have work incredibly well thanks to the Democrats. The country could not be more divided and less trustful of it's government thanks to how leftists within it have handled their power, not to mention the Press with it's hate, bias and incompetence.
Meanwhile the President is accomplishing incredible things in rapid succession.
The Russians, the Press, and the Democrats all suffer on the sidelines in disbelief due to their shared misjudging and underestimating of the rest of America and their elected President.
I believe in democracy and the majority rule, which means the popular vote, but I reserve the right to question how often the parts of our brain linked to a primitive past makes emotional decisions with little rational or factual considerations, and so yes some of these ads posted by Russian trolls had an effect, but just how much is not measurable and it doesn't mean all Trump voters were duped by the ads, maybe by Trump but not the ads. And remember Hillary was not the strongest candidate nor did she garner the enthusiasm that Sanders did.
Facebook has been weaponized. Shut it down.
A great genius with wild hair once warned the world about the approach of weaponized nuclear physics. And you just read a similar warning from another such individual about social media.
OGWiseman at 12:16 PM
I wonder if you've engaged with the Russian hacks against the DNC offices.
Our Intelligence Community has conducted itself very stupidly in this entire affair.
Because its leaders -- Brennan, Lynch, Clapper, Comey and all their ilk -- hated Donald Trump so hysterically, they went along maximally with any suspicion or indication might discredit Trump. Those leaders were out of their minds.
This whole idea that Russian Intelligence colluded with Trump to use hacked e-mails to defeat Hillary Clinton is loony. It's a loony idea that was not allowed to be challenged within the Trump-hating and Putin-hating leadership of the Intelligence Community.
The "evidence" was not subjected to normal procedures of intelligence assessment. Instead, the Trump-hating leaders appointed a few Trump-hating analysts to concoct special assessments that were ludicrous.
Russian Intelligence did not steal the e-mails from the DNC server. Get that idea out of your head.
"... it doesn't mean all Trump voters were duped by the ads, maybe by Trump but not the ads. "
Oh yes, I feel so duped. If I was, I'll need to try that more often. Never have I been so right about a decision that I had little confidence in at the time.
After this president accomplishes great things that a long line of his predecessors could not, what will be the appropriate term for people who derided those who chose him and brought the world those great things? I'm just gonna go with "dumb and wrong" or "drong"
r/v: " ...it doesn't mean all Trump voters were duped by the ads, maybe by Trump but not the ads."
"Heritage: Donald Trump has achieved more than Ronald Reagan in first year"
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/heritage-donald-trump-has-achieved-more-than-ronald-reagan-in-first-year
LOL
"Dupe" away!
bagoh20: "The Russians' plans have work incredibly well thanks to the Democrats."
A sentence that would be correct if written at any time between 1917 and today.
And remember Hillary was not the strongest candidate nor did she garner the enthusiasm that Sanders did.
Here, I agree with R/V.
Sanders was a reincarnation of McGovern and the Democrats were afraid of another 49 state sweep like 1972. That's why they loaded the convention with all the "superdelegates" and this had nothing to do with Trump.
The fix was in and the Sanders supporters, like Seth Rich, went off the reservation and gave the emails to Wikileaks.
Seth found out what happens when you cross Hillary but that Russian myth was invented AFTER she lost,
So Trump is alone in a suite with Stormy Daniels. They flirt a bit, but Trump doesn't do her because he can do better than an over-inflated, aging porn star.
Ten years later, on the eve of the presidential election, she makes a blackmail call (that's what it was, don't sugarcoat it). What does Trump do? Arranges an indirect payment to buy her silence with an NDA.
Does this description not fit the facts?
Yes. And Stormy had the Playboy Bunny come into the room as Trump was changing his pants to provide a witness to bolster her blackmail of NBC, initially. "No hard feelings, Trumpie. It's just business and it won't cost you a dime." In October 2016, it's a different story. Everyone knows the Media will play her story on a loop until election day. Anyone secures an NDA, whether the story is true--or false as she said at least four times previously.
Maybe a couple rounds of waterboarding will calm's lifelong Incel Chuck's rage. Or perhaps he will just take it out on Palmula Handerson. I have it on good authority that he makes "her" call him master and beats her, just like that NY Attorney General.
Louis Wetzel, I think you have hit the proverbial nail on the head.
The "tell" is the difference between the payoffs from the two clients of Cohen.
First of all, rump is a germophobe. What would a germophobe want to dip in that pestiferous hole ?
Trump, of course.
I personally want to know why fellow Michigander and LLR Chuck hero Michael Moore fronted a Putin-funded rally in New York.
Did Michael Moore get paid for his appearance, or is he simply accustomed to doing whatever his (Soviet) Russian masters desire?
Or both?
Blogger roesch/voltaire said...
I believe in democracy and the majority rule, which means the popular vote, but I reserve the right to question how often the parts of our brain linked to a primitive past makes emotional decisions with little rational or factual considerations . . .
Democratic rule doesn't mean that the majority is wise enough to know what is best for everyone else. Democratic rule assumes that each voter knows, and votes, in his/her interests. Non-democratic rule assumes that someone other than the citizen knows his/her interests better than he/she does.
This is a difficult thing to prove.
"I think they do not believe in democracy."
They also to not believe in liberty and freedom. They are afraid of letting someone voice opposing opinions, owning firearms, or operating their business and risking their capital in a manner of their own choosing. All they want is power obtained by any means necessary to remake society to their liking.
Who came up with the idea that Hillary was entitled to be President, and that only extraordinary circumstances could deny it to H>er ? Somehow this idea was sold to the Big Money boys who bankrolled H>er campaign, and they still await the Quo for their Quid. Somebody needs to look H>er in the eye and explain that she was a terrible candidate who ran a terrible campaign and that she deserved to lose. I wouldn't want to be the guy to do this, unless I was wearing a hockey goalkeeper uniform.
Yancey Ward said...
rehajm wrote:
"Right. That Hillary the candidate sucked donkey dick had absolutely nothing to do with it.
As Inga might point out- right there you demonstrate that you yourself was influenced by the the Facebook ad where it was pointed out that Hillary sucked donkey dick.
5/10/18, 10:47 AM
Inga said...
Known Unknown, I may have zero proof that (it)happened, but you also have zero proof that it didn't happen. As I said it's classified info and we are not privy to it. Be patient. Not every thing gets leaked.
5/12/17, 3:29 PM
Non-democratic rule assumes that someone other than the citizen knows his/her interests better than he/she does.
It's more than just knowing. It's possible that there may well exist a person out there that may know better than you what's in your best interest. The question is, knowing that, whether they would actually act in your best interests even (or especially) to the sublimation of their own. And anybody with even the most basic understanding of human nature is able to discern how likely that is. The beauty of Democratic systems is that they don't assume that there's some purely selfless and good caste of humans out there who not only know better, but will consistently do better.
Blogger roesch/voltaire said...
I believe in democracy and the majority rule, which means the popular vote, but I reserve the right to question how often the parts of our brain linked to a primitive past makes emotional decisions with little rational or factual considerations . . .
Which is why women shouldn’t be allowed to vote.
Who came up with the idea that Hillary was entitled to be President
Hillary Clinton.
@Chuck, thank you for the response at 1:25. Now answer, please, the question. How much money did the Clinton Foundation college for relief efforts in Haiti, and how much did they spend in Haiti?
Even if I accept your interpretation of events as true -- a thoroughly dubious proposition! -- a person who pays off a blackmailing porn star is nowhere near as despicable as someone who steals relief funds from the poorest people on earth to fund her lavish life style.
Who came up with the idea that Hillary was entitled to be President
Hillary Clinton.
Bill Clinton helped come up with the idea. They both thought it was a great way to make money!
You take a guy who cheated on his wife in Tahoe with a porn star, lied about it to everybody in the world except his fixer, who used a fake holding company to pay her off, using "David Dennison" as a pseudonym, made the payment to get her to sign an NDA, lied about it when caught, and then lied some more to completely reverse-engineer a story that didn't trigger criminal violations....
Vs
A sitting president who used his willing wife, his cabinet, the media, the ruling class and the majority of the Democrat establishment to stay in office?
THAT’S the argument you want to make?
Open up the impeachment files, then we’ll Talk.
It’s about sex. You lowered the bar so who cares?
My take is that if there exists any ad that is so persuasive that when put up on Facebook it can determine the outcome of an election, then the entire axiom set of the American experiment is invalidated.
Antifa, #Resistance, Sanctuary cities are worse than anything the Russians could have done to fracture America.
Soros could use his multimillions to heighten "fault lines", why shouldn't the Russians?
Bet the problem with the Russians is they cut out the influence peddling middlemen: the lobbyists and the activists.
Not to mention the ex-presidents questionable airplane jaunts.
If SNL were funny it could have a field day with these ads.
It’s about sex.
@Seeing Red, right you are. And as Democrats explained to us as nauseum back in the 1990s, there’s nothing wrong with “a little lying about sex.” I guess they changed their minds in the past twenty years?
Somewhere Bob Packwood is smiling in Karma.
CJ, this is a blog where words are supposed to mean something.
The definition of what exactly this republic is probably the most important influence on our lives. I never can accept a sloppy definition of our government.
I absolutely love R/V's comment. So much grist for the mill.
"I believe in democracy and the majority rule, which means the popular vote,..." Yeah, right up to but not including the possibilty that an R might benefit. But more seriously, that means you are in favor of nationally standardized voter registration, since without same, combining the several states vote totals leaves open all manner of incentives for each state to maximize its voter rolls. Also, president/vice president is the only election which crosses state lines. All other elections are the business of each of the individual states to conduct as they see fit. So you would sacrifice this very important piece of state sovereignty in order to have a popular vote for this one office.
"...but I reserve the right to question how often the parts of our brain linked to a primitive past makes emotional decisions with little rational or factual considerations, and so yes some of these ads posted by Russian trolls had an effect," Would you be swayed by such ads? I'm guessing no. So you're just saying those not as sophisticated as your academic self need saving.
"... but just how much is not measurable and it doesn't mean all Trump voters were duped by the ads, maybe by Trump but not the ads." Trump voters. Hillary voters were immune, even though there was a mix of ads beyond those which were pro-trump. Lord you're condescending.
"And remember Hillary was not the strongest candidate nor did she garner the enthusiasm that Sanders did." Finally, a blinding glimpse of the obvious.
BH0 would be very happy with all the BLM ads. That's what he wanted to foment.
it doesn't mean all Trump voters were duped by the ads, maybe by Trump but not the ads.
This presupposes that voting for Hillary was the default, and that one would have to be duped to vote for Trump. But to swallow the Hillary Myth whole is to dupe oneself.
readering said...
I seem to be one of the more prolific never-Trump commenters here
Excuse me, readering. You may have misunderstood something.
NeverTrumpers are typically Republicans who hate and fear PDJT, let's not get into why. A commie lib like you, commie lib that you are, is just a Democrat.
Hope that helps.
A foreign power committed electronic crime against an American political party, and leaked the results to make them look bad.
Really? Could you prove that in court?
If someone had done the same thing to Trump's campaign, they also would have looked terrible. That's the nature of internal communications. But they only did it to one side.
The cloud of malefactors briefly referred to as the Deep State was and is doing exactly this and you appear to be lapping it up without any regard for the consequences.
Based on this thread I am forced to conclude Chuck is a moralizing scold and an idiot.
late to the party so this may have already been said, but ...
How are these ads any different than the division the democrats were sowing the entire election season. The Democrats should be happy to have had the extra help. Not that it mattered ultimately, they picked the worst candidate ever.
Many on the left think they are moral dictators. Only they have a right to power, have aright to tell you what to do.
Democrats lie constantly and then they hide behind Soros dirty money skirt and Steyer dirty money. You know- dark money.
Lies are not lies on th4e left. They are new fresh facts.
Anne, Don't know if you are following the latest Mueller shenanigans but apparently one of the Russian companies that he indicted for interfering in the election hired a US law firm, made an appearance, accepted process, and is demanding a speedy trial. My prediction is that Mueller will drop the charges against the firm - whether because he doesn't have any evidence or doesn't want to disclose what his evidence is prior to the end of his investigation, I don't know, but I don't think the judge will let him postpone the trial with a defendant sitting there and demanding a speedy trial, so Mueller will probably drop the charges. I wonder if the judge will let him do that without prejudice? Maybe not.
Since the popular vote did not determine the election, shouldn’t Mueller have limited his infestigation to Russian influence on the Electoral College?
I don't know, but I don't think the judge will let him postpone the trial with a defendant sitting there and demanding a speedy trial,
And demanding discovery,
OG Wiseman asks why no one hacked Republicans. The answer is they tried. Republican security reported the attempts and thwarted them. Democrats never let the government analyze their servers. We don't know if it was a hack, phishing or an inside job.
Mueller shouldn't have indicted if he wasn't ready to go. Why is this top flight guy making so many bone headed choices?
We still don't know who killed DNC staffer Seth Rich.
Democrats never let the government analyze their servers.
Gee - I wonder why?
Every leftwing loyalist who I know - they all believe Russia and Trump stole the election from its rightful owner. They just know it!
Dems not accepting the election result: I'm more and more struck by the low quality of human being who is taking the lead in trying to destroy Trump. A comparison can be made to Watergate: Woodward and Bernstein have probably been over-rated, but they did good work. They were stuck on the Metro beat, basically for losers, but they noticed that the burglars had first-class attorneys. Judge Sirica abused his powers to get the burglars to plea bargain, but he sensed something big, and wanted to open it up. Senator Sam Ervin: arguably an old Southern cracker and a show-off, but he was an impressive example of a Senator. Howard Baker. The various special counsels. Mark Felt. There were real investigations, by bright honest and hard-working people, of real crimes. Today we have will o the wisp charges against the President, minor charges against people who might someday incriminate the President in something, Mueller and Comey (Dumb and Dumber), and the calibre of people goes down from there: the four Lovebirds of Justice, Rosenstein, Yates, the creepy attorney who claims he represents Stormy Daniels but won't say who's paying his bills. Schneiderman, my God. Phillipe Reines. The Queen of red wine and dementia herself. Various senior Obama appointees. The leaders of the campaign to bring down Nixon wouldn't have trusted any of these people with a 20 dollar bill to go get coffee.
So, we have the Russians or likely foreign factions (e.g. post-coupe government in Kiev, anti-Putin factions in Russia, British agents), to thank for the substantial defection ("anti-Trump") from the Republican Party. Then there is the rabidly diverse DNC that gerrymandered the vote and denied the nomination to the Jew (wrong class, wrong time). Obama/Clinton/DNC's Water Closet is still leaking after so many trimesters following inauguration, and the press is aiding and abetting its domestic and foreign cover-up.
Comey coordinating his post-FBI Director testimony to Congress with the Mueller team.
Why would Comey need to coordinate his testimony with Mueller?
And now we hear reports that the FBI literally placed a spy within the Trump campaign.
Unbelievable.
If it wasn't for Russian facebook ads, where would Inga get her news ?
Judge just awarded $3.5 million to groups targeted by Obama's IRS
My bet is more votes were swayed by the corrupt IRS than all the Russian bots combined
http://thegatewaypundit.com/2018/05/judge-awards-3-5-million-settlement-to-tea-party-groups-for-obama-irs-targeting-scandal/
Ted Knight as Judge Smails LLR... LOL!
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा