I can’t think of them of gay marriage ads specifically off the top of my head, but I know there were pro Jill Stein ads. If I get time I’ll see if I can find a summary article.
If Russia wanted to target things only Trump was interested in, I don’t think they’d need his input to figure out what those things are. And I don’t think they’d take his direction if he requested they only target those specific issues.
In summary:
[ul]
[li]Ads about issues Trump is interested in - don’t think it suggestions coordination[/li][li]Micro-targeting with CA data - strongly suggests coordination, but waiting on proof that ads were targeted at substantially the same audiences the GOP knew about, and that these audiences were uniquely specific.[/li][/ul]
Of course, that’s why I said “if.” We know they did very specific targeting but the details aren’t known yet. But it is a serious question with enough evidence to warrant an investigation rather than a crazy left wing conspiracy theory as you claim.
The Russians needed US help to tie issues in with geography for strategic gain.
“If Russia wanted to target things only Trump was interested in, I don’t think they’d need his input to figure out what those things are. And I don’t think they’d take his direction if he requested they only target those specific issues.”
What are you trying to say here? The if/then statements are not your friend.
There has to be 33 holes in this dyke. How many things do you have that could pass for digits?
Actually, I very specifically couched my statements as an opinion. You need to go re-read and appreciate the meaning of the words, “I personally find it an interesting coincidence…”
Related: a network of Russian-linked tweeters has been amplifying the Anthem controversy this last weekend.
The Russian tweets, which include both human and bot-controlled accounts, promoted tweets on both sides of the issue. Remember - Russia doesn’t actually give a shit about our Anthem or our football league. Russia wins by encouraging dissent and chaos.
See also this C|net article -
[quot3=cnet]
A network of Twitter accounts suspected of links to Russia were used this weekend to stoke the controversy over whether NFL players should stand for pregame performances of the national anthem, The New York Times reported late Wednesday. The accounts pushed both sides of the debate, using hashtags such as #boycottnfl, #standforouranthem and #takeaknee, the newspaper reported.
During a rally in Alabama on Friday, President Donald Trump called for players who kneel during the national anthem to be fired. The remarks were met with pregame protests by nearly every NFL team on Sunday, as well as a league statement calling the comments “divisive.”
Researchers at the Alliance for Securing Democracy have been monitoring 600 Twitter accounts they have linked to Russian influence operations. Those accounts, operated by human users and suspected bots alike, pushed the opposing messages surrounding the NFL and the playing of the national anthem, researchers said.
Just to beat a dead horse – the idea that intelligence agencies, whether they be Russian, American, Chinese, Israeli, British, or whomever, don’t know much about targeting, and would have to turn to political campaigns or businesses to figure out who they ought to be seeking to exploit, is fantastically naive. It shows a complete lack of understanding of fundamentals of how intelligence works.
Targeting is a fundamental task of the intelligence business. Folks may as well be suggesting that Fortune 500 corporations don’t know about, say, sales.
So the question was whether the Russians had engaged in that level of micro-targeting. When discussing that specific question, you did not hedge at all. You said:
What you’re saying now is that you hedged about whether the Russians got it from Trump. But that’s a subsequent part of the chain.
Targeting “key threats to the US” is not even remotely the same thing as targeting particular voting groups (e.g. independents or undecided voters) in particular swing states.
This is not to say that intelligence agencies couldn’t do so if they wanted to; it’s to say that this isn’t what they focus on. It would have been much more cost-effective for the Russians to make a deal* with, say, Cambridge Analytica, than to duplicate the fine-grained analysis of particular US voting precincts that C.A. performs as part of its core business.
*Not a direct deal, most likely, but rather something done through cut-outs.
You are beating a dead horse, because you are assuming no one is aware of this but you.
It would be much more persuasive if you could show a link demonstrating that Russia, specifically, has/had the resources to amass the highly specific information about individual American voters such as has been collected by data mining companies like Cambridge Analytica. Remember, 5,000 points of data per voter.
Russia is a poor country. Their economic output is a fraction of ours. It cost Cambridge Analytica a ton of money to put together their treasure trove of data. But you’re saying that Russia is somehow able to equal that, with their limited resources? That they are the equivalent of our CIA?
And wouldn’t it have been far easier for them to simply get the data from some willing stooge who would… I don’t know… just give it to them?
Wait – I’m supposed to show that a foreign intelligence agency has a specific capability, which would be highly classified and unavailable to even the vast majority of Russian government officials, to rebut your conspiracy theory that there are only two sources that the Russians could have used to gain this information?
This is about as much bullshit as making a claim that Russia couldn’t afford to interfere in our election had it not been for the willing help of someone with deep pockets, like Donald Trump himself.
I have no intent to persuade you that your silly theory doesn’t hold any water. I posted for the benefit of whomever may be reading this thread and might pause for a moment to consider whether you might know something about how intelligence works, and I thought it prudent to comment that it appears you do not.
ETA: I will add that it is also entirely possible that the Russians could have just stolen voter data and research being shared with the DNC, and turned it over to… guess who? Russian targeters.
I did not “hedge” in that quote because the information in it is not in dispute. Those are all generally-accepted factual statements. The evidence of it is where the Russians sent their Facebook fake news and the micro-targeting with which they sent it. Or are you saying they didn’t send their fake news with specific micro-targeting to individual voters? Please demonstrate that one single word of what I said quoted above is not factually true.
I’m not saying anything “now” that I didn’t say in total with an honest reading of what I actually said. It’s not “hedging” when I draw the distinction between what is accepted fact and what I offer as a conclusionary opinion. I distinguished between those two things, even if you can’t see that.
I have never said the linkage between Cambridge Analytica (Trump) and the Russians was absolutely proved. That’s stuff you keep trying to put in my mouth. But in my opinion, the evidence for such a conclusion is compelling.
I doubt if that is generally accepted to be factually true. I’m not going to try to prove it’s false. If you’re making an assertion then you prove it’s true. Otherwise I’m happy to leave things as they are.
No, I’m not trying to put this in your mouth. I’ve not previously tried to put this in your mouth. If it will make you happy I’ll state explicitly that Aspenglow has not said that the linkage between Cambridge Analytica (Trump) and the Russians was absolutely proved. Happy?
But what you have said, most recently in this very post, is that the Russians clearly used a level of micro-targeting that they would not have access to without Cambridge Analytica or something like Cambridge Analytica. I’m saying that’s in question.
In fact, I advertised on Facebook before - I never saw any options to target individual user lists (that is what you mean by micro-targeting, right? If not - please explain).
Aspenglow has repeatedly implied that Russia most likely turned to either CA or the Trump campaign, on the basis that it is a remarkable coincidence and in his opinion the most likely way that a poor country would carry out such a thing.
I read that. He did not say that Russia doesn’t know much about targeting. Your response was a complete strawman.
He did say that the targeting efforts are extraordinarily precise. Apparently more precise than the DNC was able to do with legal access to information about voters. Just because an intelligence service has an interest in targeting it does not mean that they have unlimited means to do so. The micro-targeting doesn’t prove anything, but Mueller and the congressional investigations think it’s worth investigating instead of just throwing their hands up and saying “duh, it’s Russia, they’re all powerful propagandists.”
If I say that it’s unlikely that my neighbor’s kid sent a satellite into space, and you say it’s naïve to think he doesn’t know anything about rockets, he got a model for Christmas, then you’re not really refuting what I said. Yeah, he can land some shit on my roof, but we’re talking magnitude of capability, not having any at all.
And I’m not saying there’s a link between CA and Russia, but if Russia was suspiciously good at micro-targeting and CA was suspiciously good at it. And Russia offered help to Trump, and Trump officials said they were interested in Russian help, that potential link should be investigated.