Thank you again for no real rebuttal."Tantrum" is really a weak effort. I would expect better from you. My poasts are nothing but truth. I know a liberal like you cannot handle the truth. That is OK. I still consider you a a reasonable poaster in everything other than political poasts. I know your time is better spent driving an RV rather than losing a political debate with Louigi.
Things I have learned in this thread:
Your satire is quite creative, but not funny . Yet here I still wait for you to rebut or address any of the points at hand.
Is this an opinion or a fact?
The points at hand? You mean about the indicted Russian nationals?
Obtuse is my jam. It's fun watching you angrily insist we have the conversation you want to have instead of the one we're actually having.
That mock courtroom poast was hilarious. I realize it was at your expense, but it was funny as hell. You've never struck me as having much of a sense of humor.
I dunno... I think @Raising Heel put some effort in that. Besides, It's not quantity, it's quality.
Impressive, you found another word in your vocabulary other than moron. It always gives me peace when a millennial liberal resororts to name calling becuase it is admission of defeat. Thanks for playing .
It would be nice if our president wasn't a corrupt jackass in the first place and never gave the FBI a reason to tie up those resources. That's what you meant to say, right?
I guess the FBI has about 4 guys on the payroll now?
So our government is run by a bunch of Facebook ads? And we are learning the 56% of Russia placed ads were AFTER the election. No, it is not an obvious priority on tracking who pays for Facebook and social media ads. I can think of 1000 more priorities than this.
True, but that's a gross oversimplification of their operations. Only about 10 million Americans saw the ads, but about 126 million Americans saw other social media content created by the Russian nationals.
I don't think it really made much of a difference for a couple of reasons. The most obvious reason is that Hilary won the popular vote and she also won the younger vote. The younger voters are more likely to use social media as their source for news. Also, if I understand it correctly, what you see in your Facebook feed is based on an algorithm calculated by your past actions. Trump supporters were already likely to have been involved with Trump type issues even before he was running. That means, at least in theory, that the people seeing these ads were going to vote for Trump already. I'm not saying that it didn't influence anyone. I just think it's an extremely small number that didn't really make a difference.
I'm guessing it had more to do with wanting Hilary to lose than it did wanting Bernie to win.
The Russians' alleged activity was specifically focused on purple states. The rallies they helped organize were located in swing states like Florida. They understood the importance of the Electoral College.
The socials media accounts weren't set up as news organizations. They were set up as special interest groups or individuals with specific areas of political focus.
Right, but the activities weren't aimed at them. They were aimed at undecided voters. So in theory, a black voter who was considering voting for Hillary might have been dissuaded by repeated posts about how Bernie or Jill Stein would better represent BLM and related interests.
True, but you also have to wonder if it discouraged viewers from voting at all. Turnout for the base that propelled Obama to victory was relatively low in 2016.
Ok. I would think those were still seen by more younger people though just based off the average age of a Facebook user.
That's a good point, but I'm not so sure the undecided voters would have seen most of it. From what I understand, most of these weren't really seen as moderate and were pretty far to the right. I would think that would limit the exposure to mostly Trump supporters based on the algorithm. Although one could argue targeting the Trump supporter could possibly help increase his turnout.
Another good point. That being said I think that had more to do with her being almost as unpopular as Trump. And if we are being honest about it, Obama being black inflated the black vote.
I thought Facebook users' ages skewed a lot older? Keep in mind they were also using Twitter, Instagram, and other social media platforms. I really only use Twitter, and I was seeing so much trash (liberal and conservative) that I had to unfollow tons of people who kept retweeting it into my feed.
I don't really know but agree on the point about turnout. The indictment didn't specify the activities that were designed to harm Cruz and Rubio. It would be interesting to know more about that side of the operation.
Absolutely on both points. I've been pretty clear about my disdain of Clinton. If the Democrats had nominated a better candidate this story might never have received nearly the amount of attention it has. Good luck to history books authors, lol.
