• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Russian-funded Facebook ads backed Stein, Sanders and Trump

kirblar

Member
Oct 9, 2010
63,315
1
860
You doint go to Kremlin state dinners celebrating their propaganda network as an American unless you're a gigantic piece of shit.
 

TarNaru33

Banned
Dec 13, 2013
1,596
64
395
You doint go to Kremlin state dinners celebrating their propaganda network as an American unless you're a gigantic piece of shit.

Many on the far left do not see Russia as a threat and are generally pacifist, thinking they can deal with Russia's influence/expansion via diplomacy and complacency, it is one of main issues of the left that I do not like.
 

googleplex

Member
Jun 7, 2010
9,069
1
0
Despite my overt skepticism for the red baiting narrative in Washington i'm going to say something super controversial right now based on the hypothetical scenario that everything we've heard is true and Putin directly ordered hackers in the Kremlin or whoever to fuck with US politics to stop Clinton from winning...

Honestly with the way Clinton talked about putting us right up against Russia in syria with that insane no fly zone she proposed, i would have been scared if i was Putin too.

Considering Libya, Iraq, and other 'mistakes', i have no doubt Hillary would not have been afraid to exercise the military industrial complex(that for the record spends 10x more than every other country combined) against Russia and Iran, who she always thought of as enemies, thus putting us straight on the path of WW3.

I am ambivalent on their hypothetical attack on our democracy as well considering how many governments and democratic institutions the US has toppled over the years with absolutely no apologies or recompense. Maybe keep our shit locked down tighter next time.



No, she didn't win because she had weaknesses that could be exploited by Russia(just like the DNC)and skeletons the size of dinosaur bones that sowed discontent within the electorate long before the general.. Whatever ads russia may have bought only reinforced the sentiments that already existed in reality from legitimate places.

Its dangerous to try and take the blame off of the candidate because of red baiting. That's the real fake news.

Its way more dangerous to shift the blame from white america that voted for a person that ran specifically on a white nationalist platform. Even worse, the people that chose to sit this selection out or protest vote while a openly racist candidate was running.

Sorry but White America takes the blame for this one.
 

kirblar

Member
Oct 9, 2010
63,315
1
860
Many on the far left do not see Russia as a threat and are generally pacifist, thinking they can deal with Russia's influence/expansion via diplomacy and complacency, it is one of main issues of the left that I do not like.
Jill Stein is an opportunistic grifter. She is not a far lefty, she just knows how to make money off them. (See: her deliberately softening her stance against antivaxxers)

You'd think civilization would teach people what happens to pacifists.
 

TarNaru33

Banned
Dec 13, 2013
1,596
64
395
Jill Stein is an opportunistic grifter. She is not a far lefty, she just knows how to make money off them. (See: her deliberately softening her stance against antivaxxers)

You'd think civilization would teach people what happens to pacifists.

I will read about it, but many on the left are also full with anti-science belief..

EDIT: Look at every GMO related thread.
 

Chaos2Frozen

Member
Mar 20, 2014
11,427
0
0
Well obviously Trump was worse, but yet he is President of U.S right now because Hillary was a worse candidate. Not because of her policies, but because of the baggage she had and the obvious calls of a populist rising. She could of won if people took Trump as more of a threat than they did and recognized Hillary's issues.

I mean, everyone else in the world can agree Hillary is the better choice except huge number of Americans, maybe that's the problem right there.
 

Afrikan

Member
Jun 27, 2007
12,154
0
1,310
Everything is straight out of the 1997 geopolitical playbook, Foundations of Geopolitics, for ex Soviet KGB based rule:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics

Most everything major they've wanted to happen has happened (remember, this was written in 1997):



This is some scary ass shit. We in the west have been played like a fiddle.

I remember reading these last year... seriously when is the movie or documentary coming out? Or are they waiting for the ending. D:

how could Russia be so successful at this? It blows my mind. Like they must've done some serious research for a long time to get an idea of how a certain percentage of american minds work.
 

Ozigizo

Member
Feb 5, 2014
2,727
1
0
I remember reading these last year... seriously when is the movie or documentary coming out? Or are they waiting for the ending. D:

how could Russia be so successful at this? It blows my mind. Like they must've done some serious research for a long time to get an idea of how a certain percentage of american minds work.

Lots of money, time, and resources. I wouldn't be surprised if this has been in the works for over a decade.
 
Dec 6, 2008
21,903
0
0
how could Russia be so successful at this? It blows my mind. Like they must've done some serious research for a long time to get an idea of how a certain percentage of american minds work.

Likely they had help from inside the US on targeting and conforming the message to be as effective as possible.
 

boiled goose

good with gravy
Oct 30, 2007
12,845
1
1,050
Many on the far left do not see Russia as a threat and are generally pacifist, thinking they can deal with Russia's influence/expansion via diplomacy and complacency, it is one of main issues of the left that I do not like.

You want war with russia?

(Sanctions are part of diplomacy)

Sanders part is interesting. For the rest, hardly news.

More Sanders voters voted for Hillary than Hillary voters did for Obama in 08 so it clearly didn't work that much.

What it did do was perpetuate some weird myth in places like neogaf that Sanders voters supported Trump. It never made sense. .
 

madstarr12

Member
Jul 10, 2015
816
1
0
Anaheim, CA
I mean, everyone else in the world can agree Hillary is the better choice except huge number of Americans, maybe that's the problem right there.
Its interesting how that works. The rest of the world was able to see reason, while many US Citizens drowned in their emotions and selfishness.
 
Apr 27, 2009
34,831
1
0
Honestly with the way Clinton talked about putting us right up against Russia in syria with that insane no fly zone she proposed that would have put us straight on a track to a major war, i would have been scared if i was Putin too.

Considering Libya, Iraq, and other 'mistakes', i have no doubt Hillary would not have been afraid to exercise the military industrial complex(that for the record spends more than every other country combined) against Russia and Iran, who she always thought of as enemies, thus putting us straight on the path of WW3.

Give me a fucking break. This wasn't about being scared of WW3. It was about the oligarchy losing money due to sanctions. This is the kind of propaganda that we're talking about right here. They feed the gullible far left this drivel about how scared and threatened they are and they just do all these things to "protect" themselves.
 

llien

Member
Feb 1, 2017
10,393
8,354
945
I mean, everyone else in the world can agree Hillary is the better choice except huge number of Americans, maybe that's the problem right there.

Bernie Sanders was the best choice.
But there are good reasons people outside US cannot vote on US elections... =)
 

magichans

Banned
Jul 3, 2010
521
0
0
Many on the far left do not see Russia as a threat and are generally pacifist, thinking they can deal with Russia's influence/expansion via diplomacy and complacency, it is one of main issues of the left that I do not like.

Well, what do you think the alternative is? Declaring war on a nuclear power?
 

TarNaru33

Banned
Dec 13, 2013
1,596
64
395
Well, what do you think the alternative is? Declaring war on a nuclear power?

You want war with russia?

(Sanctions are part of diplomacy)

I figured you all would misunderstand that part. I said via diplomatically and complacency. The issue with leftist in U.S and in Europe is they believe Russia can be dealt with on a diplomatic stage. Issue with that, is it tend to take a ridiculously long amount of time. Also Russia wants its past influence and glory back. Real sanctions against Russia would also hurt the EU (already is), so pressure will at some point form, to release the sanctions.

Obviously U.S and Russia can not directly engage one another, that is why they arm the opposition of one another.

Basically I do not like pacifism because often intervention comes too late when there is already a large death toll. WW2 and the Syrian Civil War are examples of this.
 

magichans

Banned
Jul 3, 2010
521
0
0
I figured you all would misunderstand that part. I said via diplomatically and complacency. The issue with leftist in U.S and in Europe is they believe Russia can be dealt with on a diplomatic stage. Issue with that, is it tend to take a ridiculously long amount of time. Also Russia wants its past influence and glory back. Real sanctions against Russia would also hurt the EU (already is), so pressure will at some point form, to release the sanctions.

Obviously U.S and Russia can not directly engage one another, that is why they arm the opposition of one another.

Basically I do not like pacifism because often intervention comes too late when there is already a large death toll. WW2 and the Syrian Civil War are examples of this.
The Obama administration had done everything it can do already with economic sanctions. They can't do anything short of war, provoking war/conflict, or a useless proxy war type situation.
 

Condom

Member
Aug 26, 2013
5,864
0
370
The Obama administration had done everything it can do already with economic sanctions. They can't do anything short of war, provoking war/conflict, or a useless proxy war type situation.
The proxy is already there with Ukraine. Western coup and now Russian invasion and sabotage (all those weapon silos suddenly going up in flames).
 

jakonovski

Member
Feb 11, 2008
5,679
0
0
Smart of Russians to target everything except pro-Clinton. Increases the chances of purges within the American progressive movement and thus more political dysfunction.
 

Acerac

Banned
May 20, 2007
10,230
582
1,225
Its interesting how that works. The rest of the world was able to see reason, while many US Citizens drowned in their emotions and selfishness.

I'd have to imagine that most other countries weren't being attacked by Russians attempting to misinform the public on this particular issue.
 

magichans

Banned
Jul 3, 2010
521
0
0
No, not even remotely.
And the whole "peregruzka" thing ended up as a self insult.
The peregruzka thing is unrelated.

And they did pretty much everything they could do within their capabilities. Not like they can force the country to collapse or something. Russia is a superpower. Putin toughed out the sanctions and economic warfare to show that Russia was independent, and he won the chess game. I think if Obama could've done something, he would've done it long ago. I mean, he basically hated Putin:

 

Rosstimus

Banned
Dec 30, 2016
169
3
235
Makes sense. Worth noting that this piece of info doesn't necessarily implicate Sanders, Stein, or Trump on it's own. Just means that Russia was trying to prevent Clinton from being elected.
 

Timedog

good credit (by proxy)
Oct 15, 2004
29,501
1
0
Portland via Spokane
www.nutella.com
Either Jill Stein is a colossal idiot or she was actively complicit in Russia's meddling. I would hope she is in the scope of Mueller's inestigation.
Ummmm, I doubt Stein had anything to do with this. Russia just wants to divide in whatever way possible.

If I was a Trump supporter, I'd take some time to wonder why Putin and Russia would be so scared of Clinton and so happy with the choice I preferred.
Or, as a Trump supporter, you could just about face and start loving Russia right after you despised them, because you're hypocritical idiot garbage.
 

madstarr12

Member
Jul 10, 2015
816
1
0
Anaheim, CA
I'd have to imagine that most other countries weren't being attacked by Russians attempting to misinform the public on this particular issue.
Thats true, but I'm sure there were plenty of people with resources to look things up to see if things are true or not, likely stayed home or voted 3rd party in states that mattered. I was exposed to such material on social media, I've seen the ads against Hillary and the pages on Facebook that were specifically designed to make her appear like a monster, and I still voted for her. There really is no excusing these people, especially the young people who could have made a difference.
 

Taker666

Member
Apr 26, 2005
4,060
3
1,420
Isn't saying "Russian funded" very misleading?

Just because a Russian bot company pushed the stories it doesn't mean it was "Russian funded"...it could have been paid for by anyone.You need to see the companies business records to see who paid them to push the news on social media to be able to determine who funded the ads.

For all we know it could have been Republicans, info wars..simply an anti-Clinton American who paid a Russian bot company.


I could pay $40 today to get a Russian bot company to retweet a story 10,000 times on twitter on my behalf...but that would be British funded not Russian funded as I'm from the UK.
 

ClosingADoor

Member
Apr 6, 2009
16,923
0
0
Amsterdam
Isn't saying "Russian funded" very misleading?

Just because a Russian bot company pushed the stories it doesn't mean it was "Russian funded"...it could have been paid for by anyone.

You need to see the companies business records to see who paid them to push the news on social media to be able to determine who funded the ads.

For all we know it could have been Republicans, info wars..simply an anti-Clinton American who paid a bot company.


I could pay $40 today to get a Russian bot company to retweet a story 10,000 times on twitter on my behalf...but that would be British funded not Russian funded as I'm from the UK.
Sure... because that makes the most sense with all the smoke going around Russia with this election.
 

Taker666

Member
Apr 26, 2005
4,060
3
1,420
Sure... because that makes the most sense with all the smoke going around Russia with this election.

Well I'd like to be shown the actual fire, rather than just the smoke for once.

Smoke seems to be all we're getting...often because people seem so keen to believe it's fire that created it.

Countering one form of propaganda with another doesn't help get any actual truth.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
Jun 18, 2009
62,408
10
1,115
Straw man much?

There is a frustrating effort among some parts of the left to outright deny that Russia is in any way a thing to be concerned about because it conflicts with the narrative that Clinton lost entirely because she was a two-faced neoliberal shrew who didn't "represent the people"
 

Cerium

Member
Mar 25, 2015
9,789
2
0
Isn't saying "Russian funded" very misleading?

No it's not. Mueller was able to get a search warrant for this stuff, which is the only reason why we know about it. For that he'd have had to convince a judge that it's relevant to the investigation.

You'll need another angle for that spin.
 

ClosingADoor

Member
Apr 6, 2009
16,923
0
0
Amsterdam
Well I'd like to be shown the actual fire, rather than just the smoke for once.

Smoke seems to be all we're getting...often because people seem so keen to believe it's fire that created it.

Countering one form of propaganda with another doesn't help get any actual truth.
There is an investigation going into Russian interference where this came up, this is not propaganda.
 

Taker666

Member
Apr 26, 2005
4,060
3
1,420
There is an investigation going into Russian interference where this came up, this is not propaganda.
It's propaganda to claim it's "Russian funded"..

..if it's merely a Russian bot company that pushes stories on behalf of whoever pays them to do so.

It's factual in that case to say "A Russian bot company pushed pro-Sanders, Trump and Stein stories on facebook. It is not currently known who paid said company to push each of these stories.".
 

ClosingADoor

Member
Apr 6, 2009
16,923
0
0
Amsterdam
It's propaganda to claim it's "Russian funded"..

..if it's merely a Russian bot company that pushes stories on behalf of whoever pays them to do so.

It's factual to say "a Russian bot company pushed pro-Sanders, Trump and Stein stories on facebook ...it is not currently known who paid said company to do so.".
It was Russia funded. The money paid to Facebook came from a Russian company. I don't know why you try to twist this into something else. It is not propaganda, please look up what propaganda actually is.
 

Steel

Banned
Jun 20, 2013
19,664
1
0
Seemed like they were totally on an anti-Hillary campaign.

Where does this put Rubio, though? Didn't they try and hack him in order for him to lose to Trump? You'd assume any candidate that wasn't Hillary was a target they'd back, not eliminate.

Rubio was more of a conventional anti-russia republican who had a good chance of winning. Stein was pretty close to Russia. They probably just exploited Bernie voters because he was unlikely to win and it was a good way to increase divisiveness among democratic voters.
 

PuppetSlave

Member
May 11, 2006
5,142
0
0
Sweden
It's propaganda to claim it's "Russian funded"..

..if it's merely a Russian bot company that pushes stories on behalf of whoever pays them to do so.

It's factual in that case to say "A Russian bot company pushed pro-Sanders, Trump and Stein stories on facebook. It is not currently known who paid said company to push each of these stories.".

соломенный человек comrade Taker. Get back to practicing and stop being so transparent. It is called having an motive. Apparently it is an vital part of investigations, who knew???
 

KernelPanic

Member
Apr 2, 2008
10,538
0
0
Canada
It's propaganda to claim it's "Russian funded"..

..if it's merely a Russian bot company that pushes stories on behalf of whoever pays them to do so.

It's factual to say "A Russian bot company pushed pro-Sanders, Trump and Stein stories on facebook. It is not currently known who paid said company to push each of these stories.".

What makes you think they had to be paid by someone? Do you need to see a contract and a cheque made out to Russian troll farms signed by a V.Putin?

Manipulating elections to install a more favorable government isn't a new concept and is a payoff in itself anyway.

Russia wanted him to win. Various meetings with Trump campaign and Russian officials about sanctions and the Magnitsky, sudden pro Russia policy toward Ukraine. You must be living under a rock.

Signs point to a quid pro quo arrangement which is what the investigation is about among other things.
 

Cerium

Member
Mar 25, 2015
9,789
2
0
It's propaganda to claim it's "Russian funded"..

..if it's merely a Russian bot company that pushes stories on behalf of whoever pays them to do so.

It's factual in that case to say "A Russian bot company pushed pro-Sanders, Trump and Stein stories on facebook. It is not currently known who paid said company to push each of these stories.".
People have already corrected you about this and yet you determinedly ignore everything about the investigation and the search warrant.

Are they paying you in rubles to post this?
 

Taker666

Member
Apr 26, 2005
4,060
3
1,420
It was Russia funded. The money paid to Facebook came from a Russian company. I don't know why you try to twist this into something else. It is not propaganda, please look up what propaganda actually is.

No..it was funded by whoever paid the Russian company to push the stories via facebook.

Now you could say "a Russian bot company paid for facebook ads while being funded by an unknown entity from an unknown country". ..

..but to say "Russian-funded facebook ads" is simply trying to push an agenda that puts "Russia" itself as the individual entity who funded said ads.
 

Steel

Banned
Jun 20, 2013
19,664
1
0
No..it was funded by whoever paid the Russian company to push the stories via facebook.

Now you could say "a Russian bot company paid for facebook ads while being funded by an unknown entity from an unknown country". ..

..but to say "Russian-funded facebook ads" is simply trying to push an agenda that puts "Russia" itself as the individual entity who funded said ads.

Here's the thing, it'd be illegal for a political organization to be funding a russian bot company for this. Most third party orgs also tend to do this stuff with their own name.
 

ClosingADoor

Member
Apr 6, 2009
16,923
0
0
Amsterdam
No..it was funded by whoever paid the Russian company to push the stories via facebook.

Now you could say "a Russian bot company paid for facebook ads while being funded by an unknown entity from an unknown country". ..

..but to say "Russian-funded facebook ads" is simply trying to push an agenda that puts "Russia" itself as the individual entity who funded said ads.
Other advertisements paid for by shadowy Russian buyers
It says right here in the article who paid for them.

You seem strangely hung up on this, while everything points in the direction of the Russians.
 

Taker666

Member
Apr 26, 2005
4,060
3
1,420
Here's the thing, it'd be illegal for a political organization to be funding a russian bot company for this. Most third party orgs also tend to do this stuff with their own name.

Would it? Is there a specific law?

In the UK there was a leadership challenge in the UK Labour party last year and it was trending on twitter along with the opponents hashtag..now it turned out most of those retweets/hashtags were not located in the UK but were coming from India and other countries in that area...so clearly someone in the UK, likely linked to the party, paid bot farms to get it trending.

Still..it wouldn't have to be a political organization who funded this. As I mentioned earlier, a quick google and you can see how you can pay $40 to get 10,000 retweets on twitter.