I really do not understand how Russia interfered in our elections

[question everything]

Unless it actually changed the results of the counted ballots.

I did not join Facebook until after the elections. Mostly to see what family members are saying and, often, the only way to communicate with a corporation or, recently, with my now elected-office holders.

When i first started there would be ads on the side claiming that the Obamas were divorcing. Did I pay any attention? Of course not!

Yes, some post links to stories and even if I click on it, I am perfectly capable of judging the validity of the story.

In last year's "Homeland," there were clashed between the FBI and some anti government people in the middle of nowhere. A kid was shot by and FBI agent and rushed to the hospital. A (real) Russian agent managed to get close to the ER and took a photo of that kid on a bed. He then removed all the medical personnel and sent it as the kid died, alone.

This story, of course, riled the deplorables. But there was not a single news outlet to double check it. If something like that happens in real, would even Fox check the validity?

And, of course, we are familiar with that moron who started shooting at a pizza place in D.C. but this just confirms that whatever the Russians did, they relied on our gullibility.

The only exception that I see is the meeting at Trump tower which, I think, was in violation of our laws. And hacking the DNC server and spreading info from Wikileaks.

Yes, I know, we've been talking about this for two years but I still don't understand how we can blame the Russians for taking advantage of the stupidity of the American voters.

What else is there?

Thanks

[Loki Liesmith]

1. Whatever

[brush]

13. This has to be satire, right, and she/he forgot the sarcasm gif?

No one with that many posts would be that clueless.

[democratisphere]

2. There have been at least 2 years of reasons the Russians interfered

In our elections. Nothing more needs to be said. You may question everything but I question U?!

[Hekate]

3. If you don't understand the propaganda mechanisms by now, I can't help you. As you say...

...we've been talking about this for two years now at DU -- and we have not been shy about sharing information.

[mr_lebowski]

4. If they are responsible for stealing DNC docs, which it seems like they are ...

And co-ordinated with the Trump campaign to release the docs, which given the Tower meeting and the Roger Stone communications ... seems as though they did ...

And ESPECIALLY if the campaign RECEIVED any of these stolen docs ... which also seems likely given the dramatic early October shift in focus which suggested that Parscale leveraged stolen and proprietary DNC demographic info re: 'Clinton weaknesses' to target certain voters and regions ... that total combination ABSOLUTELY suggests a multitude of crimes, some of them quite serious.

This whole case does NOT just hinge upon 'dumb gullible voters', but actual crimes involving illegal hacking, receipt of stolen property, and coordination with a foreign power.

[violetpastille]

5. They did more than that.

Here's a refresher (The Steele Dossier)

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3259984-Trump-Intelligence-Allegations.html

And we do think that Mueller has a lot to reveal in due time, right?

But as far as bots on Facebook, of course they were not tricking many DUers. But I remember some things that were initially pushing me toward one candidate over another. The stories that were appearing in front of me seemed cherry-picked to push me in a nationalist, anti-immigration, anti-trade stance.

So I got the hell off of data-mining social media. I cover my webcam. I cover my audio port. I am of average intelligence. As George Carlin points out that puts me in the top 50% percent. Half the population is below me. (Maybe. Who knows.)

I do not fault those people less intelligent than I was. Just as I don't blame the students at Trump University, or people who believe in "The Secret" or go into debt to MLM schemes and on and on.

I blame those who take advantage. For money.

It's wrong. It's immoral.

[question everything]

9. Thank you. Yes, I am familiar with that "yellow showers" dossier

and of course the Russians still have a hold on Trump that we do not know the extent of it. Mueller knows, I hope.

But they are talking about "Clinton Dossier" and I am not aware of any damaging info about her that was used in the campaign. Except the emails which most, I thought, just hu-humed it. The bad thing was the DNC trying not to support Sanders which, after all, he has never been a Democrat (a different topic).

I guess I am looking for specific instances: "Hillary embezzled the State Dept. coffers." Something like that. I suppose this was the problem: nothing concrete, just innuendos.

Still, thanks for the link. Will read it more carefully, beyond the "salacious" stay at the Ritz.

[dawg day]

32. That is the point.... the innuendo.

Clinton didn't do anything wrong. But the Russians and Trump implied and lied. So now you ask some Trumper... what exactly criminal was in the emails, and they're baffled. That is what happened. Don't blame Clinton. Russia and Trump know exactly how to manipulate GOP voters AND Trump's stupid brigade.

[dawg day]

33. And how would supporting Sanders have helped?

You think they would not have gone after him? They wanted Trump to win.

[Grasswire2]

39. You are wanting to know what would drive Dems from HRC?

Or what Russians CONTRIVED falsely to drive Dems from HRC?

[question everything]

42. Sadly, I do know

As we've seen on these pages, many just did not like her and, sadly, this was enough, certainly in WI and in MI.

When will our side, the thinking side, conclude that sometimes you vote for someone even if you have to hold your nose?

Admittedly many did not think that Trump would be so malicious. He used to be a Democrat, used to be pro-choice, during the first debate he mumbled about health care "like Canada." Yes, he changes his mind - or whatever stands for it - and one cannot do this while trying to lead the world, or when aids cannot suggest anything.

[Hoyt]

6. As long as it's limited to lies, Facebook, domestic swiftboaters, etc., tend to agree.

I blame those who voted for trump. There was not much unknown about him, yet people voted for him.


But, if it did get into hacking/changing votes — which I don’t think happened, but could have — then I’d be ticked at Ruskies. Truth is, we’ve messed with lots of foreign elections. Will really be ticked if it is shown trump paid, or insinuated he’d help Russia or anyone else for help in winning election. That really is a get out the pitchforks crime.

There is lots to dislike about the way 2016 election went down, but blaming Ruskies doesn’t help avoiding similar in future.

[RobinA]

44. Absolutely Agree

I’ve said since the beginning that if Russian meddling with fake news helped get Trump elected, Donald Trump us not our biggest problem.

[nini]

7. Propaganda is a powerful tool

And the Russians are masters at it. They took advantage of lazy reality TV watching idiots.

That being said, let's not forget Hillary won the popular vote and my gut tells me those last few states that cause the drama late election night were suspicious. I have no proof but something happened that night.

[dsc]

8. There are three levels

One is what you outlined, and barring the Trump campaign coordinating with Russia, I wouldn't see the illegality.
Two is the email and data that was stolen from the DNC. Virtually everyone thinks Russia did it and there is a bunch of evidence that the Trump campaign at least coordinated after the fact. The email theft was illegal as would any coordination be.
Three is switching votes which so far there is no evidence of.

[question everything]

10. Thank you for distilling it like that

I suppose once Mueller releases his report - and Whitaker does not deep six it, we will know.

[meadowlander]

14. But there is evidence of them hacking into voter databases.

All they would have to do would be to change some information (add an extra hyphen or space or change a digit in the telephone number) and people's information wouldn't match at the polls and they would have to fill out a provisional ballot slowing things down significantly. We know there is evidence of four hour lines and lots of people being told there was an issue with their registration. That could encourage enough people to give up and in the right districts that could have a significant impact.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/russian-hackers-had-access-to-delete-or-alter-voter-data-before-2016-election-2018-5?r=US&IR=T

[uponit7771]

19. +1, the "there is no evidence the purged voters" is not the same as they did NOT purge

... voters either.

I don't believe for a second they broke into voter database, looked around and didn't change a thing

That would make little to no sense.

[yardwork]

11. DU was besieged with negative stories about Hillary Clinton.

The propaganda was deep and broad, and it influenced people on the left and right.

[MichMan]

12. Do you think that any DU members voted for Trump because of those posts?

If not, how were they influenced ?

[yardwork]

20. If they didn't vote for Hillary it was the same as a vote for Teump.

And yes, I saw a thread on another website where hundreds of DUers pledged not to vote for Hillary. And we're a tiny fraction of what happened.

[question everything]

21. And, I think, many thought that Hillary would win, anyway, so their "conscience" was clear

Similar to many in California voting for Nader in 2000 knowing that Gore would carry the state.

And, at some level, both Trump and Sanders carries a similar message: that the working class has been forgotten by the government and both parties.

[Demsrule86]

26. Well they should feel shame every damn day for not voting for Hillary as should those who didn't

vote for Gore...a big Fuck fuck you to those who voted for Stein, stayed home or whatever...didn't vote for the only person who could stop Trump and back in the day Gore...imagine a world without two fucking wars and an economic meltdown...and a new economic debacle is coming ..thanks to Trump...these people literally are responsible for babies going to bed hungry and for whatever happens to the kids kidnapped at the border...and for all the other shit coming our way in the next two years...including Roe going.

[yardwork]

31. I was responding to your question about the impact of Russian propaganda.

The votes of so-called progressives in college towns in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania were enough to hand the election to Trump.

Russian propaganda worked by convincing enough voters that there is little difference between Hillary and Trump. This is absurdly wrong but enough people were confused.

[Beatlelvr]

15. You must read

Malcolm Name's book The Plot to Destroy Democracy.
He's got names, dates, places. Outstanding.

Also, I want to mention the 2016 election. Lots of pundits have their opinions why Trump won. Nobody mentions the year and a half long anti Hillary campaign by F o x
and conservatives. My brother and sister-in-law, and an old Repub. friend voted for Trump, not because they liked him much, but they HATED Clinton more. All from the garbage about Benghazi, uranium and Clinton Foundation
shenanigans. By the way, Charity Navigator and other sites rate the Clinton Foundation with an A rating. Then look up Trump Foundation. If their only news source is Fox, that's the spin they hear and believe.

[MichMan]

17. I'm not referring to conservatives. I'm responding to posts that were mentioned as being on here

that influenced the left

[question everything]

28. You mean Malcolm Nance? (yes, the irritating self speller..)

Yes, he is a great commentator.

We had a cable repair man here recently, and he said that he voted for Trump and now regrets it. Lots of good it does us now.

I really hope that many of these, not the deplorables but regular neighbors who dislikes Hillary - many here disliked her, too - will vote for the Democratic candidate in 2020, anyone but Trump.

[Xolodno]

16. To give you an idea what was going on in facebook...

...You had RW nut job relatives sharing bogus news stories. For example, one was "Obama makes saying the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools illegal" and was doctored up to look like a legit news story from ABC News. Even had a link to "ABC News"....but it wasn't ABC news and just a web site that mimic'd it, closer examination of the URL showed that.

Of course, a lot of naive people bought the bull shit.

Granted this was a smear against Obama and not Hilary, but smearing Obama had the same effect on some as smearing Hilary by linking them.

I would often point out that the site was bogus...even some Republican friends of mine would do so as well. But the silence by whom who posted it showed that they still wanted to believe it. Some even tried to defend that it was "legitimate".

[question everything]

22. Thanks. I think this answers my would be next question: why go after Facebook

whether, in our "free market" society, when so many, especially seniors, fall victims to phone scams, why can't Facebook just get the money from paying customers. Whether it is its responsibility to monitor such blatant false claims.

[Xolodno]

43. How many "pay for" social web sites....

...do you know of that has a value similar to facebook? Classmates is always begging for me to sub to their site...I don't because, the old high school and college friends I do keep in touch with are on facebook. Which is free....well, not quite, when dial-up was the norm, some companies offered "free internet service", sure there was no monthly payment, but they sold your browsing habits, information, etc.

Facebook gathers data on your interests, habits, opinions, etc. and sells that info to companies...who then in turn purchase ads targeting you. People are the resource and you want to make the cost of purchasing that resource low as possible. In facebook's case, free...the minute they charge the "consumer" for content is the day they die.

[question everything]

45. Perhaps it is I, who is not much of a shopper

Several weeks ago I was looking for sweatpants. Went to the usual sites: Lands' End, L.L. Bean, Duluth Trading to see what they had. And I have been seeing display ads for... sweatpants. So what? I just ignore them. Ending up getting some at COSTCO..

So Facebook sells my data - only date of birth, really. Did not provide anything about school or city where I live. And I do not go to the sites that I mentioned form Facebook; I go from my homepage - Yahoo.

Thus it really boils down to what people put on the Internet. And one should know, for many years, that whatever one puts on the Internet, including email, is not a secret.

I also do not use "smartphone" thus no "apps" no Instagram, no twitter, no Whatsapp..

Well..

[Xolodno]

46. And guess what...that's valuable info. Enough to pay for.

Because you are not "engaged" in various internet activities, and lets assume I'm a company, I'm not going to waste my advertisement dollars on you. So I tell facebook to not target your segment and refocus my dollars to other segments.

But most do the opposite of you, so many are targeted...and given facebook's model, the target audience "share" their advertisements and hook others that weren't identified in the data.

[grantcart]

18. Did you really think that they were targeting your demographic?

That is strikingly naive.

They were targeting middle of the road and lean Democrats.

Their objective was never to convince people to change their vote but to discourage 2-3% of soft Clinton supporters to stay home.

They were 100% successful as they were in several other countries and the Brexit vote.

[question everything]

23. And I suppose this goes to also Facebook selling data?

Again, I don't care if Facebook knows that I visit sites like DU, spouse visits Amazon. Facebook knows our age and our friends and families and I don't know what this helps the "data mining" companies.

But perhaps for others it does.

[Iggo]

24. Their participation was illegal.

[dalton99a]

34. Bingo

[EleanorR]

25. Kathleen Hall Jamieson, an extremely well-respected academic has a new book on the subject

I've not read the book, but this New Yorker article details many of her findings and what led to her deciding to writing the book. It's a long read, but well worth it.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/01/how-russia-helped-to-swing-the-election-for-trump

[question everything]

29. Thanks, I will

I certainly trust her, and Malcolm Nance - above - to provide coherent detailed report.

At least I think that we all will take next projections with a grain of salt. Honestly, I did not believe the recent "Blue wave" until I saw Steve Kornacki's board filling withe blue flips.

[still_one]

27. Julian Assange agrees with you

[Adrahil]

30. Really? REALLY????? (SMDH) NT

[yortsed snacilbuper]

35. Follow the money!

[brooklynite]

36. Translation: I'm an intelligent and informed voter, so everyone else might be?

The fact that hang out at and converse on, a political blog puts you in an entirely different category from the average voter.

[Recursion]

37. Facbook's valuation is half a trillion dollars for exactly one reason

Namely, that the ads on it actually do change people's behavior. If that's not true, then Facebook's IPO is the largest scam in human history.

[UniteFightBack]

38. Is this a joke? nt

[Takket]

41. drumpf changed the platform to a pro-russia footing

right after they promised him help getting elected. he sold out our best interests in favor of Putin's for help.

that isn't just election meddling, it is treason against the US.

[Awsi Dooger]

47. 1 or 2% swayed is massive in a general election

Difference between winning and losing.

I saw the Facebook articles in September/October 2016. My sister forwarded some of them to me, ones that a right wing teacher from her school had been sending to everyone.

I had two immediate thoughts:

1) The premise was so ridiculous it was difficult to believe anyone would fall for it. They had the Clintons involved in one high crime after another, going back decades.

2) But the articles did not rely on simply a grabber headline and opening paragraph. That differentiated them from prior bogus articles I have seen. These versions weaved bullshit throughout. Long articles. Every invented claim led to another invented claim, and it came across as seamless if you were stupid enough to believe it in the first place