• 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!

Russia spent a whopping $823 in Michigan ads

D

dobieg

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 24, 2017
Messages
7,980
Reaction score
4,139
Location
In yo' grill
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
The evidence is in. Russia undoubtedly influenced the election and handed Trump the WH by spending $823 in Michigan, $1979 in Wisconsin and $300 in Pennsylvania.


Surely there can be no further arguments. Russia is the only reason Trump won.

About 25 percent of the ads were never seen by anyone, Facebook said. And of the total ads, "The vast majority…didn't specifically reference the U.S. presidential election, voting or a particular candidate."

Looking at key states, the total spent on ads targeting Wisconsin was $1,979, according to Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Richard Burr. Ad spending in Michigan was $823. In Pennsylvania, it was $300.
Click to expand...


Byron York: A non-alarmist reading of the Mueller Russia indictment
 
From a Wired article by Molly Mckew 16FEB18:




1. What was the scope of the Russian effort?

The Mueller indictment permanently demolishes the idea that the scale of the Russian campaign was not significant enough to have any impact on the American public. We are no longer talking about approximately $100,000 (paid in rubles, no less) of advertising grudgingly disclosed by Facebook, but tens of millions of dollars spent over several years to build a broad, sophisticated system that can influence American opinion.



I call your $3000 bet and go all in!
 
dobieg said:
The evidence is in. Russia undoubtedly influenced the election and handed Trump the WH by spending $823 in Michigan, $1979 in Wisconsin and $300 in Pennsylvania.


Surely there can be no further arguments. Russia is the only reason Trump won.




Byron York: A non-alarmist reading of the Mueller Russia indictment
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone on the left has contended that 'Russia is the only reason Trump won.' That is what is known as a strawman. And a snide one at that.

What we have said is that the Russian probe is not a 'witch hunt' or, a 'hoax'. As Mueller demonstrated on Friday, it is as our intelligence communities and the intelligence communities of our trusted allies have said, a real threat.

Are you prepared to continue to play an apologist role, heading into the midterms?
 
Winston said:
I don't think anyone on the left has contended that 'Russia is the only reason Trump won.'
Click to expand...

Everyone who said the election was fraudulent has, and there were (and still are) plenty of those.
 
Russia seems to have spent $1.25 Million to sow discord during the 2016 presidential campaign. Overall spending during the campaign was in excess of $6 Billion. The Russian spending was roughly 0.02% of total campaign spending. Is it fair to say that Russians intentionally influenced the US election? Sure. But it's also pretty much the same as saying that those pennies that fell out of your pocket into the couch cushions ruined your chances at early retirement.
 
Rexedgar said:
From a Wired article by Molly Mckew 16FEB18:




1. What was the scope of the Russian effort?

The Mueller indictment permanently demolishes the idea that the scale of the Russian campaign was not significant enough to have any impact on the American public. We are no longer talking about approximately $100,000 (paid in rubles, no less) of advertising grudgingly disclosed by Facebook, but tens of millions of dollars spent over several years to build a broad, sophisticated system that can influence American opinion.



I call your $3000 bet and go all in!
Click to expand...

Wired's article does not square with the information made public. Wired was all in for Hillary, and banned commenters who put up a stink for putting politics ahead of technology. So in short, Wired sucks and is still trying to make up for Clinton, Inc losing the election.
 
Harshaw said:
Everyone who said the election was fraudulent has, and there were (and still are) plenty of those.
Click to expand...

Many on the left have claimed that because of Russian interference Hilary lost and Trump won.

Now that the scope of the Russian effort has been made clear, you can't find these people anymore. They've disappeared (won't own up to their previous and false position).

Since the Russian aim was to disrupt and cause division, it wouldn't make sense that they'd only expend their efforts on a single candidate. It makes more sense that they'd have anti-Hillary efforts to instigate the pro-Trump and anti-Trump to instigate the pro-Hillary, and this instigation be to over heat the rhetoric and emotions of the two groups.
 
eohrnberger said:
Many on the left have claimed that because of Russian interference Hilary lost and Trump won.

Now that the scope of the Russian effort has been made clear, you can't find these people anymore. They've disappeared (won't own up to their previous and false position).

Since the Russian aim was to disrupt and cause division, it wouldn't make sense that they'd only expend their efforts on a single candidate. It makes more sense that they'd have anti-Hillary efforts to instigate the pro-Trump and anti-Trump to instigate the pro-Hillary, and this instigation be to over heat the rhetoric and emotions of the two groups.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there was a baffling conversation yesterday where someone insisted that "collusion" with the Russians was a story made up by Trump supporters to distract from obstruction of justice.
 
Harshaw said:
Yeah, there was a baffling conversation yesterday where someone insisted that "collusion" with the Russians was a story made up by Trump supporters to distract from obstruction of justice.
Click to expand...

Moving from a failed and disproven narrative to the next one, with no more basis in reality than the previous one.
 
Who cares how much money was spent? I could have spent a couple bucks on a bullet, and well placed it could have DRASTICALLY changed the results of the election. If I were a foreign power trying to impact your election, I would want my contribution to fly under the radar so as not to raise flags. 0.02% sounds about right...

Not saying this is what happened, I'll wait for the results of the investigation, and the dust to settle, before I come to my best conclusion of what happened, just faulting the logic some are trying to use to minimize it.

Out of curiosity, is there some pre-defined monetary amount that is acceptable to Americans for foreign powers to spend on disrupting your democratic process? Like, it's all cool if they spend a million...BUT NOT A PENNY MORE! lol...

This just keeps getting weirder and weirder.
 
Lutherf said:
Russia seems to have spent $1.25 Million to sow discord during the 2016 presidential campaign. Overall spending during the campaign was in excess of $6 Billion. The Russian spending was roughly 0.02% of total campaign spending. Is it fair to say that Russians intentionally influenced the US election? Sure. But it's also pretty much the same as saying that those pennies that fell out of your pocket into the couch cushions ruined your chances at early retirement.
Click to expand...

The did a pretty good deal feeding Steel bogus info to take to the FBI so he could pick up a paycheck from Clinton, Inc.
 
eohrnberger said:
Many on the left have claimed that because of Russian interference Hilary lost and Trump won.

Now that the scope of the Russian effort has been made clear, you can't find these people anymore. They've disappeared (won't own up to their previous and false position).

Since the Russian aim was to disrupt and cause division, it wouldn't make sense that they'd only expend their efforts on a single candidate. It makes more sense that they'd have anti-Hillary efforts to instigate the pro-Trump and anti-Trump to instigate the pro-Hillary, and this instigation be to over heat the rhetoric and emotions of the two groups.
Click to expand...

Don't know where you're getting this.

The indictment fully supports the contention that the Russians were actively attempting to get trump elected.

That they were using the tools and techniques I've been pointing out since I came to this site.

If you don't think they decided that trump stupidity would be more disruptive than same old same old Hillary you're fooling yourself.

You'd get yawns from everybody after the benghazi nonsense. The uranium one nonsense.

Do you seriously believe they would have opened up this can of worms had she won? Both parties are utterly dependent on the tools and techniques the trolls used against us. In fact, those trolls simply exploited the division and partisanship fomented by the professional manipulators HERE. The media has been curiously silent on the nuts and bolts of how this was done.

Because going into it would make their product, advertising, less effective.
 
Harshaw said:
Yeah, there was a baffling conversation yesterday where someone insisted that "collusion" with the Russians was a story made up by Trump supporters to distract from obstruction of justice.
Click to expand...
Wow. That's some tinfoil hat stuff right there:shock:
 
What if...? said:
Don't know where you're getting this.

The indictment fully supports the contention that the Russians were actively attempting to get trump elected.

That they were using the tools and techniques I've been pointing out since I came to this site.

If you don't think they decided that trump stupidity would be more disruptive than same old same old Hillary you're fooling yourself.

You'd get yawns from everybody after the benghazi nonsense. The uranium one nonsense.

Do you seriously believe they would have opened up this can of worms had she won? Both parties are utterly dependent on the tools and techniques the trolls used against us. In fact, those trolls simply exploited the division and partisanship fomented by the professional manipulators HERE. The media has been curiously silent on the nuts and bolts of how this was done.

Because going into it would make their product, advertising, less effective.
Click to expand...

The VP of Facebook ad sales, who has seen ALL the ads, disagrees. Rod Rosenstein, fgs, disagrees:

"The defendants allegedly conducted what they called information warfare against the United States, with the stated goal of spreading distrust towards the candidates and the political system in general."

What could you have heard when he clearly stated that swaying the election towards one particular candidate was NOT the intended goal?
Why would Russia spend most of the money in this campaign AFTER the election?
 
Lutherf said:
Russia seems to have spent $1.25 Million to sow discord during the 2016 presidential campaign. Overall spending during the campaign was in excess of $6 Billion. The Russian spending was roughly 0.02% of total campaign spending. Is it fair to say that Russians intentionally influenced the US election? Sure. But it's also pretty much the same as saying that those pennies that fell out of your pocket into the couch cushions ruined your chances at early retirement.
Click to expand...

What was the value of all that free TV time each day for the last month where Trump invoked Wikileaks on behalf of his Russian masters. If Trump had to pay for that daily coverage - the amount would have been staggering.
 
Moderate Right said:
As usual, you lefties would utterly fail at puzzle books where you connect the dots. Did you notice that your link was an opinion piece?
Click to expand...


Come'on man. Do I really need to add one of those stupid sarcasm emoji's?
 
dobieg said:
Come'on man. Do I really need to add one of those stupid sarcasm emoji's?
Click to expand...

I must confess I was in a hurry when responding to your post. Sorry. By the time I realized my mistake it was too late. I deserve the emoji.
 
dobieg said:
The evidence is in. Russia undoubtedly influenced the election and handed Trump the WH by spending $823 in Michigan, $1979 in Wisconsin and $300 in Pennsylvania.


Surely there can be no further arguments. Russia is the only reason Trump won.




Byron York: A non-alarmist reading of the Mueller Russia indictment
Click to expand...

Holy ****ing dishonest spin!!!! From your source:

The indictment is vague on what the Russians spent. It says that by September 2016, nearly the end of the campaign, the operation spent about $1.25 million a month. But in terms of what the Russians paid for social media ads, the indictment just says "thousands" of dollars every month.
Click to expand...

1.25 million dollars a month. The numbers you used are referring just to spending on facebook ads.
 
Moderate Right said:
I must confess I was in a hurry when responding to your post. Sorry. By the time I realized my mistake it was too late. I deserve the emoji.
Click to expand...


LOL

I knew you'd catch it sooner or later but it did give me a good chuckle.
 
Lutherf said:
Russia seems to have spent $1.25 Million to sow discord during the 2016 presidential campaign. Overall spending during the campaign was in excess of $6 Billion. The Russian spending was roughly 0.02% of total campaign spending. Is it fair to say that Russians intentionally influenced the US election? Sure. But it's also pretty much the same as saying that those pennies that fell out of your pocket into the couch cushions ruined your chances at early retirement.
Click to expand...

1.25 million a month, not total.
 
What if...? said:
Don't know where you're getting this.

The indictment fully supports the contention that the Russians were actively attempting to get trump elected.

That they were using the tools and techniques I've been pointing out since I came to this site.

If you don't think they decided that trump stupidity would be more disruptive than same old same old Hillary you're fooling yourself.

You'd get yawns from everybody after the benghazi nonsense. The uranium one nonsense.

Do you seriously believe they would have opened up this can of worms had she won? Both parties are utterly dependent on the tools and techniques the trolls used against us. In fact, those trolls simply exploited the division and partisanship fomented by the professional manipulators HERE. The media has been curiously silent on the nuts and bolts of how this was done.

Because going into it would make their product, advertising, less effective.
Click to expand...

How do you differentiate between getting Trump elected and making sure Hillary was not elected?
 
Acadia said:
The VP of Facebook ad sales, who has seen ALL the ads, disagrees. Rod Rosenstein, fgs, disagrees:

"The defendants allegedly conducted what they called information warfare against the United States, with the stated goal of spreading distrust towards the candidates and the political system in general."

What could you have heard when he clearly stated that swaying the election towards one particular candidate was NOT the intended goal?
Why would Russia spend most of the money in this campaign AFTER the election?
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about ads.

I'm talking about the social media persuasion campaign.
 
What if...? said:
I'm not talking about ads.

I'm talking about the social media persuasion campaign.
Click to expand...
OK, well then, what exactly did Rosenstein say that makes you believe social media campaign (which would include FB) attempted to bolster Trump's chances?
And, how can it be explained that Hillary was so far ahead in the polls right up until she lost?
And how is it that the MSM, with millions of daily viewers, weren't persuaded to not vote for Trump when they scoffed and literally laughed their asses off at his chance of winning?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom