Surrender Summit II: Putin Invited to Washington

You didn't know Fox was a GOP mouthpiece or you're just talking about MSNBC?

Fox isn't a direct mouthpiece of the GOP, it's a mouthpiece for the same business organizations that control the GOP. This is a sufficiently subtle distinction that I didn't feel it was worth mentioning. I was talking about MSNBC.

If you know MSNBC spent so much time talking about Benghazi and emails then you should know they were defending her from GOP outlets like Fox.

Except that I saw plenty of coverage that did no such thing.
 
Fox isn't a direct mouthpiece of the GOP, it's a mouthpiece for the same business organizations that control the GOP. This is a sufficiently subtle distinction that I didn't feel it was worth mentioning. I was talking about MSNBC.

Who said direct? Is Fox a mouthpiece for the GOP or not? Do those business organizations control the Dems too? Does Wall St control just one party? I know corporations buy elections for the 2 parties. Hell, its right there in the name - MS NBC?

Except that I saw plenty of coverage that did no such thing.

You saw MSNBC hosts attacking Hillary over Benghazi? Who may I ask did that?
 
Wikileaks is known to be highly reliable. So you if your argument is that simple truth has influenced the election I dont see how anyone with democratic mindset can have anything against it. The facebooks adds were just silly thing not designed to influence the election but to generate revenue and profit. Complete nothingburger.
First of all, I think the actual effect of these shenanigans on election results was negligible overall. Of course, there is no way of being certain, especially with the result having been as close as it was.
What matters is that Kremlin did what it could to advance one of the candidates. It is obvious, that in doing so they hardly had best interests of US in mind.

Framing this in terms of "simple truth having influenced the election" is nonsense. Leaking the dirty laundry of just one party in a campaign has nothing to do with being fair and transparent, especially since the leaks had very little in a way of actual substance.
 
What matters is that Kremlin did what it could to advance one of the candidates. It is obvious, that in doing so they hardly had best interests of US in mind.
It was not so obvious with facebook ads though. They were not clearly supporting one of candidates, part of them was pro-liberal.
See, Russia was just concerned about erosion of democratic values in the USA and decided to promote them... :)
 
Part of the reason why Russian propaganda was so successful is because they seemingly promoted "both sides" to create a false sense of choice and "both sides" being valid options, but in reality it was a carefully crafted plan to trick the American public, and it worked. Kremlin's "political engineers" (this is a real job title, by the way) and Ольгино trolls did their job well.

To quote Joseph Goebbels, "The best propaganda is that which, as it were, works invisibly, penetrates the whole of life without the public having any knowledge of the propagandistic initiative." The Soviet government, and by extension the current Russian Federation, knew and applied it very well. One of the most famous examples was the Soviet slogan "по запросам трудящихся" ("by request from the working class"), which was really just state agenda passed as will of the people.

If I had any doubts about Russia's interference in US elections before, now I have absolutely none. I honestly should have known better when France, Germany, Finland, and the Netherlands reported Russian hacker attacks during their elections, but I guess I still hoped our government is not that terrible. Well, it is.
 
Part of the reason why Russian propaganda was so successful is because they seemingly promoted "both sides" to create a false sense of choice and "both sides" being valid options, but in reality it was a carefully crafted plan to trick the American public, and it worked.
So what was the trick - how political ads promoting both sides, supposedly helped one side only?
 
So what was the trick - how political ads promoting both sides, supposedly helped one side only?
Targeting supposedly pro-Democratic ads to Republican voters in order to mobilize them?
Just a theory, I haven't followed this too closely.
 
Targeting supposedly pro-Democratic ads to Republican voters in order to mobilize them?
Just a theory, I haven't followed this too closely.
I'm pretty sure the facebook campaign didn't had the goal to support one of candidates. Each of them had multi-million dollar election campaign and Russian "intervention" with a few thousand dollars wouldn't make any difference.
The goal of contradictory ads might be something like further polarization of public opinion, but I'm theorizing here too.
 
Targeting supposedly pro-Democratic ads to Republican voters in order to mobilize them?
Just a theory, I haven't followed this too closely.
I am also just theorizing, but here are my two cents.

First of all, Republicans always benefit from lower voter turnout, so if the ads served are used to demoralize the general public and make them feel helpless, they are less likely to go and vote, which, like I said, benefits the Republicans. It doesn't matter which ads you serve and to who, as long as you keep the general populace apathetic (the majority of people don't want to vote and stay neutral till the very day of elections anyway).

Also, there is no way those WikiLeaks and other dirt on Hillary Clinton just randomly came out at the crucial times in the campaign. Again, you can serve ads for both Trump and Clinton, but if you are only spilling dirt on Clinton, then you are very insidiously promoting the other candidate. A lot of people voted for Trump because "he isn't as bad as Hillary", so all the Russians had to do was to occasionally smear Clinton, even if they served the political ads perfectly equally.
 
Also, there is no way those WikiLeaks and other dirt on Hillary Clinton just randomly came out at the crucial times in the campaign.
At the crucial time in the campaign, she collapsed and was dragged into a car by her security. It's easy to disregard all these events as Russian plot, but in reality she was just a bad candidate.
 
At the crucial time in the campaign, she collapsed and was dragged into a car by her security. It's easy to disregard all these events as Russian plot, but in reality she was just a bad candidate.
And how does a simple Russian man know who was and who wasn't a bad candidate for the American people?
 
I think the case that Russia clearly helped Trump is a bit overblown by those who wish to distract us from what really happened. Yes, Russia intervened to help Trump but mostly they intervened to disrupt the US political process. Trump and Clinton are just useful lightening rods to drive a wedge in the entire process. They weren't so much pro-anyone as they were anti-US.

But so long as people stay hyper-focused on what specifically Russia did or didn't do to help Trump we all overlook the bigger problem.
 
I do wonder why an ordinary Russian man is so interested and active in the threads discussing US politics.
I guess he is a paid Putin's troll. Because Russians obviously can neither have nor express their own opinion about US politics.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom