Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

IT’S HAPPENING… Sean Hannity: “The Deep State House of Cards — Mark My Words — It’s About to Come Cr

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by flgator2, Mar 9, 2019.

  1. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    7,095
    512
    508
    Dec 9, 2010
    US PACs still require names, usually with connections to the party or certain politicians. That is why questionable is the word you used, not downright false. They shade the truth, spin things, etc. But they are still legally accountable and have some reputational effect. IRA has none of that.
     
  2. VAg8r1

    VAg8r1 GC Hall of Fame

    7,409
    439
    533
    Apr 8, 2007
    I'm sure a little help from Cambridge Analytica was a factor and possibly the polling data that the Russians received from Manafort.
    A fully integrated operation combined Trump’s digital campaign and Russia’s Internet Research Agency – Alternet.org

    Did Moscow Get Help From the Trump Campaign in Its Social-Media Trolling?
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  3. danmann65

    danmann65 GC Legend

    967
    213
    288
    May 22, 2015
    Gosh 20 or 25 years ago Rush was funny. I think his schtick was almost Colbert like. Sometime over the years he started believing the nonsense he was spouting.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. danmann65

    danmann65 GC Legend

    967
    213
    288
    May 22, 2015
    I think if Hillary had made one campaign appearance in any of the flyover states she would be president now. Her arrogance had her treat the campaign as a coronation tour. That is why she lost.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. fastsix

    fastsix Premium Member

    7,373
    685
    833
    Apr 11, 2007
    Seattle
    I don't think he believes it, he just had to tweak his programming in order to keep his audience and keep the money rolling in. I think this is true for most of those types - Rush, Hannity, Alex Jones. At their core they most likely are conservatives, but the crazy stuff, the conspiracy stuff, the demagoguery is about them making boatloads of money, not politics. Same with trump, except I'm not even sure at his core he's an actual conservative, and he is in it for the power at least as much as the money.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  6. CaptUSMCNole

    CaptUSMCNole GC Hall of Fame

    2,540
    111
    253
    May 23, 2007
    NCR
  7. VAg8r1

    VAg8r1 GC Hall of Fame

    7,409
    439
    533
    Apr 8, 2007
    The influence of the IRA really cannot be measured using the normal metric of how much they spent (and nobody except the Russia government and maybe US intelligence agencies have the answer to that question). One advantage of using social media is that it's extremely cost-effective, much more so than conventional advertising. A relatively small number of targeted tweets or Facebook posts can go viral fairly quickly and will be repeated thousands if not hundreds of thousands of times. Again remember that Trump won because he carried WI, MI and PA and he carried each of those states by a margin of under one percent. Social media may very well have been the difference in those states.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  8. CaptUSMCNole

    CaptUSMCNole GC Hall of Fame

    2,540
    111
    253
    May 23, 2007
    NCR
    The answer is out there. How much was the IRA spending each month in the run up to the election?
     
  9. fastsix

    fastsix Premium Member

    7,373
    685
    833
    Apr 11, 2007
    Seattle
    This picture has been seen hundreds of millions of times. How much did this little girl (or her parents) spend to make that happen?

    [​IMG]
     
  10. danmann65

    danmann65 GC Legend

    967
    213
    288
    May 22, 2015
    Maybe but I suspect he is more like L Ron Hubbard who cynically created his religion but was twisted by it success.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. duchen

    duchen VIP Member

    4,071
    1,052
    553
    Nov 25, 2017
    Inside the transition, Trump's national security advisers believed that Russia changed the results in Trump's favor. Setting aside the self-serving public relations statements, the admissions against interest of their intelligence professionals while they were doing their jobs tells the truth. Of course, that is why Manafort and Gates gave Kiliminick voted data. There would be no other reason.

    ""if there is a tit-for-tat escalation [on sanctions], Trump will have difficulty improving relations with Russia, which has just thrown U.S.A. election to him." K.T MacFarland, Deputy National Security advisor (to Mike Flynn) during the transition, E-mail dated December 29, 2016, quoted by Bertrand, Natasha, "Top Transition Official in Private E-mail: Russia 'has just thrown the election to Trump," business Insider, December 2, 2017, Top Trump transition official in private email: Russia 'has just thrown' the election to Trump

    The poster I am replying to blocked me, so don't expect a reply. As to his questions about influence and money spent: those questions are immaterial. The Russian troll money was well spent because the Russians had GOP data and they had stolen the Dem data in the hacks. They knew exactly what to target, as reflected by where they targeted (it is now we’ll publicized that the voter suppression trolling was aimed at Midwestern states that went for Trump) and what the results were,

    And, they are very good at what they do. This is a form of warfare in Russia-- it is called the Gerasimov Doctrine.

    But, you don't have to take my word for it. Take KT MacFarland's word.
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2019 at 10:42 AM
  12. G8trGr8t

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    13,449
    712
    648
    Aug 26, 2008
    Madcow is just the opposite side of the same coin. Those on team dem will never admit it though. The whole bunch of them and their supporters are a big part of what is wrong with this country.
     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2019 at 9:45 PM
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  13. G8trGr8t

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    13,449
    712
    648
    Aug 26, 2008
    The fact that Hill totally dismissed those states maybe had a little more effect than the ruskies. Face it, they were running a victory lap long before the race was finished
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. VAg8r1

    VAg8r1 GC Hall of Fame

    7,409
    439
    533
    Apr 8, 2007
    Do you ever watch her? She has an obvious liberal bias but she does rely the presentation of real facts, not fabrications like some of the Fox news talking heads.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  15. G8trGr8t

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    13,449
    712
    648
    Aug 26, 2008
    Yes, I have seen her. You can take facts and spin them to create a false narrative while failing to mention facts counter to your narrative. She does that consistently. Perhaps even more disingenuous than people that just spew nonsense
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  16. VAg8r1

    VAg8r1 GC Hall of Fame

    7,409
    439
    533
    Apr 8, 2007
    Definitely a factor and possibly the most significant but a little help from the Ruskies was also a factor. The Democrats in general and the Clinton campaign specifically lost in 2016 because they were complacent. Similarly, Clinton wrote off white male blue collar voters hoping that she could make up the loss by flipping white educated suburban women who normally voted Republican. She was wrong. Fast forward to 2018. The Democrats learned their lesson by having their collective ass kicked by Trump in 2016. They weren't complacent with Democrat turnout being the highest that it was for a midterm in decades and during his first two years in office Trump unintentionally managed to do what Hillary failed at, flipping educated suburban women to the Democratic Party. The result was the loss of 40 Republican seats in the House.
     
  17. CaptUSMCNole

    CaptUSMCNole GC Hall of Fame

    2,540
    111
    253
    May 23, 2007
    NCR
    I really wish someone would just google this. It is not hard to find.
     
  18. fastsix

    fastsix Premium Member

    7,373
    685
    833
    Apr 11, 2007
    Seattle
    I wish you would understand the cost of a social media post going viral and reaching millions is negligible and as such finding out what someone paid to post an image/message gives you no idea of the image's or message's ultimate reach.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  19. duchen

    duchen VIP Member

    4,071
    1,052
    553
    Nov 25, 2017
    KT MacFarland admitted it contemporaneously right after the election. December 29, 2016. Deputy National Security Adviser. There is nothing to debate here.
     
  20. duchen

    duchen VIP Member

    4,071
    1,052
    553
    Nov 25, 2017
    The spending by the IRA in the run up to the election is immaterial. Since we know that the IRA social media targeted the same states and voter blocks that the Trump campaign did, we know that they had access to voter data that they did not pay for. In October 2016, the Trump camapign shifted to focused ads and social media and that corresponded with the IRA. We also know that the Russians stole Dem data and that the IRA and Trump campaign targeted Dem weaknesses. We also know that Kiliminick was given GOP voter data by Manafort and Gates. The IRA did not have to accumulate that data, so it was cost free. How they came to know where to target is a good question, but it was cost free. Social media is also inexpensive. If a PAC or campaign ran social media ads and claimed they were from ordinary people, it would violate election laws and would be a disaster to be associated with the falsehoods and bigotry in the IRA ads. Plus, social media takes off on its own. Accurate cost figures would require an assessment of the salaries of the employees dedicated to the work, the expense of the hacking including the development of the malware, the cost for the hackers, what the data would have cost had the Russians had gotten it on their own, the cost for the office, etc. So, the argument about out of pocket expenses is immaterial. So is the comparison of what the campaigns spent; the IRA was not buying tv ads. The effectiveness is illustrated in many ways. For example, look how effective the Seth Rich stories are or were. Even after Trump received Intel briefings during the camapign, he was blaming 400 pound guys on beds, asserting it could have been China, etc. Not so hard to fool people in an age of lies and non critical thinking