• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New report on Russian disinformation, prepared for the Senate, shows the operation’s scale and sweep

Does advertising, rallies, running commercials change people minds?

Possibly but what does your question have to do with the facts I provided above?

Maybe you don't believe the Senate report findings?
Unless we have actual proof that the Russians' propaganda changed the vote tally why continue to pretend that it did?
 
Possibly but what does your question have to do with the facts I provided above?

Maybe you don't believe the Senate report findings?
Unless we have actual proof that the Russians' propaganda changed the vote tally why continue to pretend that it did?

How do they know it did not? They do not. Do you believe it did not.
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/tech...le-main_russiareport-435pm:homepage/story-ans


Republicans own the Senate.
Russians favored Trump
Waiting for the Trump spin

Friday late in the day is my prediction for its release
Before you get all excited: "The Oxford University’s Computational Propaganda Project" research in this regard was entirely funded by the Open Societys Foundation (George Soros), started in 2016 and with analytical conclutions which would be near impossible with third-party data such as those cited.

So, if you think Oil Lobby Climate Change reports out of the norm hold the same value as independant reaserch. You go right ahead a start counting chickens.
 
There's no evidence in the vote tally that conservatives were duped, manipulated by Russian propaganda; memes and slogans.
Why do you continue to mislead the reader?

Senate report: No evidence that Russians changed vote tallies in 2016

How can you so blatantly characterize your own source>

No evidence that Russians changed vote tallies in 2016
This means they did not find evidence of any hacking/illegal changing or removing someone's digital/paper vote record.

Not "no evidence [] that conservatives were duped, manipulated by Russian propaganda", as you so clumsily wrote."
They did not even look into the question of whether or not the Russian efforts "had an impact on" the 2016 election, or to find out if people were successfully "duped" by the fake news/propaganda.

We have clear and consistent evidence that something like 30% of our population is either completely duped by, or willing to act like they are duped by, fake news/propaganda. The idea that they are magically immune to it, if it originates with Russians, is absurd.
 
How do they know it did not? They do not. Do you believe it did not.

The taxpayers pay a lot of money for the senate to conduct their investigations.
Why shouldn't I believe what they conclude?

Do you think they are lying to the American people? What proof do you provide that counters the senate committee's findings?
Here's what I believe... There is NO tangible proof available that the Russian's propaganda campaign changed the vote tally. ymmv
 
I like this part of the WaPo story -

The Russians aimed particular energy at activating conservatives on issues such as gun rights and immigration, while sapping the political clout of left-leaning African American voters by undermining their faith in elections and spreading misleading information about how to vote. Many other groups — Latinos, Muslims, Christians, gay men and women, liberals, Southerners, veterans — got at least some attention from Russians operating thousands of social media accounts.

Russians don't really need to incentivize Conservatives to vote for pro 2A issues and anti illegal immigration issues. That's kind of been part and parcel of the campaign all along. With regard to "undermining the clout" of various racial demographics, no wonder Democrats are pissed. The Russians were trying to get in on their gig!
 
Do you believe the senate report from last spring? Or are you calling it spin?

Senate report: No evidence that Russians changed vote tallies in 2016

I haven't heard of anyone arguing that vote tallies were changed--rather, that votes were changed. That is, no one is arguing that the Russians hacked county election boards, erased their vote tallies, and stuck in some other vote tallies. Rather, the argument is that the propaganda and misinformation changed individual voter perspective and hence altered the epistemic process by which voters chose their candidate. To deny that such is likely, you'd have to deny that political ads are effective.
 
Last edited:
Social media is the best thing to ever happen to psyops.
 
I don't think anyone on this sight changed anyone minds to vote for or against Trump by eloquently elaborating their
singular point of view. But it's more likely that a mind or two may have been changed here than a Russian bot
had influenced a single vote with $5400 worth of interference in 2016.

Yet an enormous group of sluggish minds bought into one of the more lame brained democratic senators Mark Warner
who has determined '“An outside foreign adversary effectively sought to hi-jack the most critical democratic process,
the election of a President, and in that process, decided to favour one candidate over another.” Warner suggested this
May have been why 'key states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania which Mr Warner named all fell narrowly -
and unexpectedly - to Donald Trump.'

The Senate Committee will examine whether the Trump campaign co-ordinated with the Russians to hire the army of trolls.
Money spent going down the drain, now wonder we are $20 billion in the red!!!!!!!!!

A CBS poll revealed half of Americans now believe the Russians interfered with the election to help Mr Trump, while 10 per cent believe there was Russian interference but that it was not specifically designed to benefit the tycoon.
There islittle hope for this country when 1/2 of the country see 'dragons in the field' when non are there
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...k-warner-intelligence-committee-a7657641.html

What idiot would listen to such nonsense.

The amount spent on advertising is insignificant. The hundreds of Russian accounts with hundreds of millions of shares are significant.

Changing minds? Study groups given placebos for headaches got some relief; those told they were a name brand painkiller reported a lot more relief than those told they were a generic painkiller. People at a wine tasting were given the same wine in 3 taste samples. They were nearly unanimous in selecting the sample in front of the most expensive wine bottle as tasting best. InDUHviduals are easily manipulated by advertising.
 
A useless report like that one provides nothing that hasn't already been known, however, the talk about a country trying to meddle in an election in another country has brought out a lot of information on US meddling in foreign elections. More people read what even some outlets of the MSM like the NYT have to say on US interference in foreign elections.

A report like the one mentioned in the OP will bring out a "(yawn), so what's new?" by conservatives, while liberals will have new bobble-head talk for about 3 days. (grin)
Enjoy the "newly-found evidence" of a nothingburger. :lol:

In the meantime, some info on US meddling:

"... MS-NBC constantly features as a contributing expert on Russia the former US ambassador to Moscow, Michael McFaul. However, McFaul never mentions how he funneled CIA cash – some $6.8 million in total – via the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and its two branches, the International Republican Institute of the Republican Party and the National Democratic Institute of the Democratic Party, to Russian opposition leaders like Aleksei Navalny. Nor does the US media mention that the CIA and State Department funneled some $5 billion into Ukraine in order to bring about a pro-US government in that country. ..."

https://www.strategic-culture.org/n...reign-elections-cia-tradition-since-1948.html

Compared to that one, Russians buying some ads on American social media is a laughable "offense" ...

Russian troll farm response ^^^^^^^^^!!!!!
 
I wonder if there were any Russian social media posts that supported Clinton or Sanders or Bush or Christie or Kasich?

I wonder if anyone bothered looking to see if that was the case.

The Russians did not want Clinton, Sanders, Bush, Christie or Kasich to win the election.
 
The Russians did not want Clinton, Sanders, Bush, Christie or Kasich to win the election.

I don't know what the Russians wanted and neither do you other than to create chaos and discontentment . Seems they were really close with the Clintons during the Uranium One thing and they paid Bill 500,000 for a little speech. They loved the Podesta brothers and their investments...…

The American people didn't want Clinton, Sanders, Bush, Christie or Kasich to win the election either. Deal with it.
 
Last edited:
I don't know what the Russians wanted and neither do you other than to create chaos and discontentment . Seems they were really close with the Clintons during the Uranium One thing and they paid Bill 500,000 for a little speech. They loved the Podesta brothers and their investments...…

The American people didn't want Clinton, Sanders, Bush, Christie or Kasich to win the election either. Deal with it.

I have no idea why you posted those last two sentences. Did you have a point?

I know what the Russians wanted. So do you.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/16/putin-trump-win-election-2016-722486
 
I have no idea why you posted those last two sentences. Did you have a point?

I know what the Russians wanted. So do you.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/16/putin-trump-win-election-2016-722486

I made my point just fine. The Russians and the Clintons and those around them were close just a few short years ago.

While you make the claim that the Russians didn't want Hillary, Bush, Kasich, Sanders or Christie the real truth is the American people didn't want them.

But hey it is the holiday season.


Kicks jukebox.....

 
I made my point just fine. The Russians and the Clintons and those around them were close just a few short years ago.

While you make the claim that the Russians didn't want Hillary, Bush, Kasich, Sanders or Christie the real truth is the American people didn't want them.

But hey it is the holiday season.


Kicks jukebox.....



So you just made a stupid post for no reason and went off topic about what the "American people" wanted, which isn't what we were discussing and had nothing to do with my post. Got it.

Sorry, I don't watch juvenile videos.
 
I don't know what the Russians wanted and neither do you other than to create chaos and discontentment . Seems they were really close with the Clintons during the Uranium One thing and they paid Bill 500,000 for a little speech. They loved the Podesta brothers and their investments...…

The American people didn't want Clinton, Sanders, Bush, Christie or Kasich to win the election either. Deal with it.

Your obvious attempt to deflect the discussion away from the OP is duly noted. The Clinton Uranium thing is not germane so let's ignore that here, as we all should.

You say that the American people didn't want Clinton or Sanders. Explain that, please.

I certainly didn't want Clinton. I would have voted for Sanders in a second if I had had the opportunity. Clinton, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and others bamboozled the DNC to ensure that Sanders would not be nominated. Surely you must be aware of it.

If your inference, however, is that the majority of the American voting pubic wanted Trump to be president I would ask you to explain how you know that. In addition, we know - and you should as well - that Russia greatly interfered in the election process on Donald Trump's behalf.
 
I made my point just fine.
Especially considering that you had no point.

The Russians and the Clintons and those around them were close just a few short years ago.
And still no point.

While you make the claim that the Russians didn't want Hillary, Bush, Kasich, Sanders or Christie the real truth is the American people didn't want them.
You are right on this. That multitude of low intellect degenerates wanted someone like them, an asshole just much much bigger.
 
There is also zero proof that anything Russia did actually changed any election results.

So just to be clear, what you're saying is that there's zero proof that Russian's disinformation campaign did not influence voters?
 
Back
Top Bottom