Average American Joseph Sixpack here. Mother Russia is kind, benevolent country, and Putin is teddy bear. NATO is obsolete and Eastern Europe none of our concern. But what do I know? I am ordinary American cowpoke like yourself.
Have there been any suspected Russian trolls on this forum? I wouldn’t think the SDMB would be on their radar. They were more obvious on Reddit during the elections, or in Syria news articles.
I have no idea if they troll here, but the SDMB isn’t that small, and I think it punches above its weight in terms of influence.
But I’m sure you are right about the main focus - I would expect lots of that sort of activity on Twitter, in the comment sections of major newspapers, large social media sites like Reddit. But the SDMB is pretty big, and has more than its share of serious people on it. Whether it has been a target of disinformation, I do not know.
It think that Bin Laden’s attempt to influence the '04 election worked. Before he released that video tape the Kerry and Bush line seemed ready to intersect. Afterward, it was like they bounced off each other.
Anybody who says, regarding the '16 election that the Russian stuff didn’t affect their vote is ignoring the fact that there are folks out there that are not as bright as you, by a long shot.
No doubt; however most people are aware there are dumb people voting in every election and most people know this is an essential part of democracy. You could pare down the qualifications for voting until every voter thinks the same as oneself but that would not be representative. Idiots are people too.
And this is only a complaint for ‘the other side’: most electioneers will have come across voters determined to vote for their own side on foolish or spurious reasoning, and few make a strenuous effort to dissuade them — from listening to one who made their choice on the grounds one’s candidate ‘is a good christian’ when one knows privately he has an altar to Baphomet in his bedroom and covers every female he meets a la LBJ, or an atheist voting for Obama or Hillary under the delusion each isn’t a sincere christian.
It would be cruel to disillusion them if if costs one a vote. ( And after all, a lot rougher things than that have happened in the electoral process .)
And in the end, it doesn’t matter how people arrived at their decision: what matters is that it is their decision.
Nor is is proven there is ‘Russian Stuff’; though after what the Clintons did to the Russian elections particularly giving them Yelsin — and worse, giving them Larry Summers — in the 1990s, it would seem poetic justice.
Because, if they had, the political parties would have cared about it and been seeking expert testimony on the matter.
One does not necessitate the other, nor did I say that they had success. It’s plausible that they had success, in whatever their aim was. All we know is what we can see, based on the December/January report that went to Obama and Trump and the expert testimony on the subject of Russian interference in the election before the Senate Intelligence Committee. In both cases, the implication is that the Russians made an attempt to interfere in the election that is seen on a similar level as something like assassinating congressmen. It is too direct a strike to allow as a component of adversarial engagement.
You never kill the king in chess, because you are the king. Allowing that rule, in war, is silly. If you allow it, then every country would just be constantly assassinating the ruler of every other nation. Everything would be in constant disorder, because changes in government would occur too often and too sudden.
This is the way that our generals were discussing the Russian attack. It’s a maneuver where, if it is allowed to everyone, then the Russians and everyone else are going to have to expect to get back in kind what they’re dishing out, and ain’t no one going to win that battle. The recommendation was not that we respond, it was that we engage with their leadership and agree not to do that any more, because it’s not an option that should be on the table.
And, presumably, our generals feel like this is the sort of conversation we should be having based on their analysis of the numbers (not the numbers of people whose opinion was changed - that’s unknowable - but by the number who would have come into contact with the materials exposed or created by the Russians), and through the CIA’s experience during the Cold War of using such techniques to destabilize nations.
As noted, the Republican party is taking the matter seriously. They would not be doing that if the Russian effort was a laughable effort or if they believed that there wasn’t a real risk to the party or the nation.
While it is conceivable that they might not have been significantly aided by the Russians, certainly the Russians were on their side. If that effort was laughable, they’d just chuckle and accept the extra 2 votes. If it was not laughable, then even despite the aid, they’d be doing what we see them doing.
I’m not sure what any of these questions matter to the topic at hand, other than as a hope to divert the topic?
Motivation is very important, Sage. If you gun down your neighbor because he was boinking your wife, that’s one thing. Quite another if you do it because he was an Episcopalian. Or something.
Some people just need killin’.
I agree with this. The election was so close, there’s no way to be sure how it would have turned out in the hypothetical universe where there was no foreign influence.
And even if they were successful in fooling us, we were the ones who allowed ourselves to be fooled. We practically begged for it! So we can be mad at Russia for being Russia all we want, but the 2016 result is on us, the American people, and we’ll be the ones judged by history for whatever happens in consequence.
I used to have enemies, but they got old. Serves 'em right!
If we’re all agreed that there was a gunning and that the gunning was either a successful murder or at least one of sufficient planning and execution that it’s splitting hairs to decline to call it a murder, then I’m happy to move on to further and more detailed discussion. But if we can’t agree on the basic facts, then I would prefer to focus on getting that cleared first.
This strikes of, “How did the water fit that pothole so well? I wonder how the pothole was so able to perfectly fit itself to the puddle.”
You’re making an assertion that it would have been close either way and then using that as evidence that the Russian involvement was not effective. Why are you making such an assertion?
What numbers are we talking, kinda lost track. Last I paid attention, it was just short of 200,000 over the crucial five states. Is that the only scenario, then? Two hundred thousand votes spread over five states?
Now, as I said, I think the primary effect of Russian interference was to exacerbate and aggravate the Bernie/Hillary division. I personally know otherwise intelligent and sensible people who swore they would go to Hell for Bernie, but wouldn’t vote for Hillary, period, full stop. I expect a bunch of them changed their minds, as the plot sickened.
In five states, two hundred thousand Dems or lefty-indies who didn’t vote for HRC, even when the alternative was a shit sandwich, hold the mayo? I won’t say that happened, 'cause I don’t know and you know I don’t. Won’t even play it sneaky and demand you prove it didn’t, or I win.
But possible? Fer sure.
No, I’m not. Where did you get that from my post?
I don’t know if it was effective or not. I don’t know if it lost Clinton three points, or gained Trpum two points, or had zero net effect (unlikely).
I’m saying that, whether the Russian activity had any influence or not, this election should not have been close enough for it to matter. The fact that it was is our fault.
We obviously inhabit different parts of this board. Plenty of the Russia focus seems to be premised oh the notion that Russia’s involvement somehow invalidates (at least in a moral sense) Trump’s win. Every fucking time they bring up her slim popular vote margin, they are saying that Hillary was the 'real" winner but for the “technicalities” of how we have run our elections for 250 years.
I voted for Hillary and people have been blaming me for Trump’s win because I wasn’t enthusiastic enough about her candidacy. Blaming the voters for Hillary’s loss is like blaming Simon Cowell because your sing like a donkey.
Cenk Uygur captures much of my sentiment on the loss by Hillary.
Hillary lost. And the "ready for Hillary crowd is basically blaming other Left leaning voters for the loss. The other day I saw a “Ready for Warren” poster and I almost fucking choked. Why the FUCK would you associate your candidate with Hillary Clinton?
Biden has dislocated his hip from kicking himself in the ass for not running in 2016.
IIRC Kruschev had a preference for Kennedy over Nixon because he thought Nixon was nucking futz and Kennedy would be more manipulable, and he admitted that he would do whatever he could to ensure a Nixon loss to Kennedy.
No cite. Just a recollection. Anyone else remember this?
Oh I’ve heard of Russian being accused of doing many things but if we strip away the liberal hyperbole - what can we reasonably assume they did and more to the point of this thread (which many seem to have missed) how did all of that actually affect the election?
So far the net result is that “fake news” may have had enough moderates stay home to throw swing states to Hillary although we are not sure how many stayed home and how many of those would have voted for Clinton/Trump/3rd Party.
Another point was that Bernie Boyz may have stayed home rather than vote Clinton because of the email release.
Uh, what?
How would one know what effect it had on the election and if it didn’t have an effect, or if it were impossible to prove one, does that mean it shouldn’t be investigated?
You tell me. A lot of Clinton Supporters are yelling about the Russian interference and a slightly lesser amount crying about how it affected the election like it is an established fact that No Russian Influence* = Clinton Victory
*Used generically as there are few specifics given as to what the influence was hence this thread.
Sorry it was the emails although I think Sage Rat may have implied the “Fake News” kept people home too.
Maybe…that’s just how math works?
But why don’t you scan back through this thread and count how many people mentioned either “Hillary” or “Clinton”, exclude your and my posts on this tangent, and then check what the percentage. Go into the other Comey threads (of which there are 6 or so) and do likewise.