RT Responds to NYT Election Interference Article

Submitted by bondibox on Sat, 09/09/2017 - 12:56am

I guess yesterday the New York Times had an article about how Putin pulled off the biggest election upset in history, by creating fake Facebook accounts. I won't link to it, but they say it exists and I have no reason to doubt that.

RT says it's true. Over the course of two years, Putin authorized the purchase 3,000 FB ads for $100,000, pointing to articles that were shared by that stranger who recently friended you. This amounted to 1/10 of 1% of all the FB ads during that time.

Obviously, Putin is a genius, because he was better able to influence the election than the hundreds of millions that the candidates spent.

Oh, and Putin also created Twitter bot accounts to respond to Trump. Because we all know that Trump can't resist replying to a bot.

On a more serious note, the article claims that the second half of the strategy was to undermine a Clinton presidency. Clearly, the NYT is employing a reverse-tactic. But also too, isn't the NYT taking this all way too far? Dare I throw the word 'credibility' around when it finds a foundation on the support of the hillbot zombies, but the NYT is taking a big risk on them never waking up. And that brings me to my other observation, that this is all a big four year setup to set the stage for the rematch, because the election was stolen from Hillary, I tell ya, stolen.

Tags:

hillary-clinton

Vote

Comments

Submitted by dervish on Sat, 09/09/2017 - 1:33am

Putin flipped an election for just $100K?

I want to buy that man a drink, and find out how he did it!

—

"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."

Submitted by Dr. John Carpenter on Sat, 09/09/2017 - 5:07am

Anyone wanna chip in for 2020?

@dervish If $100k of Facebook ads and a few Twitter bots is all it takes, I'm starting the pool today.

—

Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sat, 09/09/2017 - 2:20am

I'll save you the trouble from having you give them a click

It is "commonly" believed that Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential campaign consisted mainly of the hacking and leaking of Democratic emails and unfavorable stories circulated abroad about Hillary Clinton.

But didn't those emails show how the DNC and DWS as well as Podesta, Brazil and others colluded with each other to make sure that Herheinous won the primary? Why didn't anyone tell us if this was true or not. If it wasn't true, then why did DWS have to resign and why was Brazil fired from CNN? Another nothingburger? Hmmm

In the normal bounds of American politics, such partisan messaging is required by law to account for its source — as in “I’m candidate McAdoo and I approve this message.”

I don't remember seeing the Hillary Correct the Record disclosing that they were being paid to counter people's opinions on Herheinous, did anyone? The only way I could tell that people were from Correct the Record was by looking at their username. Most of them had a number after their screen names such as 'snoopydawg1234.
Hell, Putin only had to spend $100,000 to rig the election for Trump. Hillary's team had to cough up $1,000,000 to try to win it for Herheinous. They should call Putin and see how he was able to achieve this so cheaply. Just in case she decides to run again.

Kremlin’s stealth intrusion into the election was far broader and more complex, involving a cyberarmy of bloggers posing as Americans and spreading propagand

Yep. This certainly beats what our country has to do when they want a different president than the one who was elected. We often kill the president before we install the person we want. People should feel lucky that no one died during our last election.

This was fun. The only thing that was missing from this opinion piece was saying that all 17 intelligence agencies agree that Russia interfered with the election.
Before anyone believes that the DNC server was hacked, they have to explain why they didn't allow the FBI look at it.

—

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

Submitted by Dr. John Carpenter on Sat, 09/09/2017 - 5:30am

Thanks for the sunmary.

@snoopydawg
1) "It is commonly believed..." Wouldn't that count as weasle words?
2) The whole disclosure thing, as you pointed out, Corrupt the Record was doing the exact same thing for Her much more aggressively and with much more credible allegations of collusion between them and Her campaign. No one seemed to give a damn when we were pointing this out in the primary. And how is this that much different than astroturfed letters to the editor that was the right wing's weapon of choice for decades, to name one example?
3) What I'm gathering is the premise here is so absurd I have to wonder if any thinking person even thought about it. $100k on Facebook and Twitter somehow swung an entire election? I don't use either (so explain how I was so brainwashed, heh) but I've heard many people complain about all the politics dredged up, especially on FB. How in the world would such a relitavely small amount like $100k compete with large orginizations like CTR and the Democrats, not to mention all the stuff real people were willingly sharing for free? I'm sure there are tons of ad agencies who would love to know how you cut through the chatter so effectively and efficiently.
4) Haven't read the article, but I'm wondering do they ever actually offer evidence that this stuff somehow swung the election Rather than just allegations that it happened? Seems to me like yet another example of trying to make correlation equal causation. If that's the case, we could just as easily write an article that the millions CTR spent on behalf of Her lost Her the election because people were so turned off by their techniques. Or anything at all really.
5) Are they really implying that people are so easily influenced that one random thing sent to them on FB will decide who they vote for?

I could go on, but obviously we're on the same page anyway.

The problem with stuff like this is that even though it's so absurd, it's out there now. Base propaganda techniques are at play. It doesn't matter if it's true or not, people will see the headline, maybe skim the beginning and share it on Facebook. Ridiculous.

It is "commonly" believed that Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential campaign consisted mainly of the hacking and leaking of Democratic emails and unfavorable stories circulated abroad about Hillary Clinton.

But didn't those emails show how the DNC and DWS as well as Podesta, Brazil and others colluded with each other to make sure that Herheinous won the primary? Why didn't anyone tell us if this was true or not. If it wasn't true, then why did DWS have to resign and why was Brazil fired from CNN? Another nothingburger? Hmmm

In the normal bounds of American politics, such partisan messaging is required by law to account for its source — as in “I’m candidate McAdoo and I approve this message.”

I don't remember seeing the Hillary Correct the Record disclosing that they were being paid to counter people's opinions on Herheinous, did anyone? The only way I could tell that people were from Correct the Record was by looking at their username. Most of them had a number after their screen names such as 'snoopydawg1234.
Hell, Putin only had to spend $100,000 to rig the election for Trump. Hillary's team had to cough up $1,000,000 to try to win it for Herheinous. They should call Putin and see how he was able to achieve this so cheaply. Just in case she decides to run again.

Kremlin’s stealth intrusion into the election was far broader and more complex, involving a cyberarmy of bloggers posing as Americans and spreading propagand

Yep. This certainly beats what our country has to do when they want a different president than the one who was elected. We often kill the president before we install the person we want. People should feel lucky that no one died during our last election.

This was fun. The only thing that was missing from this opinion piece was saying that all 17 intelligence agencies agree that Russia interfered with the election.
Before anyone believes that the DNC server was hacked, they have to explain why they didn't allow the FBI look at it.

—

Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.

Submitted by Raggedy Ann on Sat, 09/09/2017 - 8:02am

Why do you keep bringing

@snoopydawg
that crap up, SD? Who cares that they were exposed for the fake party-of-the-people they claimed to be? It's the Rooshkies and the stolen election that is important. Quit looking behind that damn curtain!

It is "commonly" believed that Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential campaign consisted mainly of the hacking and leaking of Democratic emails and unfavorable stories circulated abroad about Hillary Clinton.

But didn't those emails show how the DNC and DWS as well as Podesta, Brazil and others colluded with each other to make sure that Herheinous won the primary? Why didn't anyone tell us if this was true or not. If it wasn't true, then why did DWS have to resign and why was Brazil fired from CNN? Another nothingburger? Hmmm

In the normal bounds of American politics, such partisan messaging is required by law to account for its source — as in “I’m candidate McAdoo and I approve this message.”

I don't remember seeing the Hillary Correct the Record disclosing that they were being paid to counter people's opinions on Herheinous, did anyone? The only way I could tell that people were from Correct the Record was by looking at their username. Most of them had a number after their screen names such as 'snoopydawg1234.
Hell, Putin only had to spend $100,000 to rig the election for Trump. Hillary's team had to cough up $1,000,000 to try to win it for Herheinous. They should call Putin and see how he was able to achieve this so cheaply. Just in case she decides to run again.

Kremlin’s stealth intrusion into the election was far broader and more complex, involving a cyberarmy of bloggers posing as Americans and spreading propagand

Yep. This certainly beats what our country has to do when they want a different president than the one who was elected. We often kill the president before we install the person we want. People should feel lucky that no one died during our last election.

This was fun. The only thing that was missing from this opinion piece was saying that all 17 intelligence agencies agree that Russia interfered with the election.
Before anyone believes that the DNC server was hacked, they have to explain why they didn't allow the FBI look at it.

—

"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11

Submitted by edg on Sat, 09/09/2017 - 10:56am

Million?

@snoopydawg

You wrote that Hillary's team spent a million dollars ($1,000,000) trying to get her elected. It was actually more than a billion ($1,200,000,000).

It is "commonly" believed that Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential campaign consisted mainly of the hacking and leaking of Democratic emails and unfavorable stories circulated abroad about Hillary Clinton.

But didn't those emails show how the DNC and DWS as well as Podesta, Brazil and others colluded with each other to make sure that Herheinous won the primary? Why didn't anyone tell us if this was true or not. If it wasn't true, then why did DWS have to resign and why was Brazil fired from CNN? Another nothingburger? Hmmm

In the normal bounds of American politics, such partisan messaging is required by law to account for its source — as in “I’m candidate McAdoo and I approve this message.”

I don't remember seeing the Hillary Correct the Record disclosing that they were being paid to counter people's opinions on Herheinous, did anyone? The only way I could tell that people were from Correct the Record was by looking at their username. Most of them had a number after their screen names such as 'snoopydawg1234.
Hell, Putin only had to spend $100,000 to rig the election for Trump. Hillary's team had to cough up $1,000,000 to try to win it for Herheinous. They should call Putin and see how he was able to achieve this so cheaply. Just in case she decides to run again.

Kremlin’s stealth intrusion into the election was far broader and more complex, involving a cyberarmy of bloggers posing as Americans and spreading propagand

Yep. This certainly beats what our country has to do when they want a different president than the one who was elected. We often kill the president before we install the person we want. People should feel lucky that no one died during our last election.

This was fun. The only thing that was missing from this opinion piece was saying that all 17 intelligence agencies agree that Russia interfered with the election.
Before anyone believes that the DNC server was hacked, they have to explain why they didn't allow the FBI look at it.

Submitted by dervish on Sat, 09/09/2017 - 11:08am

100K vs. 1.2 Billion

@edg If it's true it's pitiful. I'm thinking that RT is trolling them though, and Putin is laughing his ass off now.

—

"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."

Submitted by native on Sat, 09/09/2017 - 12:44pm

A stealth intrusion by a cyberarmy?

@snoopydawg
Be afraid America, be very afraid.

It is "commonly" believed that Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential campaign consisted mainly of the hacking and leaking of Democratic emails and unfavorable stories circulated abroad about Hillary Clinton.

But didn't those emails show how the DNC and DWS as well as Podesta, Brazil and others colluded with each other to make sure that Herheinous won the primary? Why didn't anyone tell us if this was true or not. If it wasn't true, then why did DWS have to resign and why was Brazil fired from CNN? Another nothingburger? Hmmm

In the normal bounds of American politics, such partisan messaging is required by law to account for its source — as in “I’m candidate McAdoo and I approve this message.”

I don't remember seeing the Hillary Correct the Record disclosing that they were being paid to counter people's opinions on Herheinous, did anyone? The only way I could tell that people were from Correct the Record was by looking at their username. Most of them had a number after their screen names such as 'snoopydawg1234.
Hell, Putin only had to spend $100,000 to rig the election for Trump. Hillary's team had to cough up $1,000,000 to try to win it for Herheinous. They should call Putin and see how he was able to achieve this so cheaply. Just in case she decides to run again.

Kremlin’s stealth intrusion into the election was far broader and more complex, involving a cyberarmy of bloggers posing as Americans and spreading propagand

Yep. This certainly beats what our country has to do when they want a different president than the one who was elected. We often kill the president before we install the person we want. People should feel lucky that no one died during our last election.

This was fun. The only thing that was missing from this opinion piece was saying that all 17 intelligence agencies agree that Russia interfered with the election.
Before anyone believes that the DNC server was hacked, they have to explain why they didn't allow the FBI look at it.

—

native

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sat, 09/09/2017 - 2:27am

And remember. This happened during Obama's tenure

He first said that he went to McConnell about this and he wanted both of them to warn the country that the election might be interfered with, but McConnell told him no.
Then Obama told us that there was no proof that they had.
Sigh

—

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

Submitted by Dr. John Carpenter on Sat, 09/09/2017 - 5:47am

Foreign interference = bad

@snoopydawg I'm much more worrried about domestic interference in our elections, which has undeniably happened in my lifetime and the Dems just sat on their hands and let happen, than I am about outside parties. Kind of like how I'm much more worried about getting killed by my local "good guy with a gun" than I am someone in a cave in the Middle East with a grenade launcher.

But you bring up something that's never really addressed during this discussion. Looking back to 2000, I always think that was allowable voter interference. It happened and nothing was done to change what happened or prosecute those that did it. Four years later, it happened again. And again, nothing changed. It seems to me when it was done within our borders, TPTB were ok with it. But now that they have a foreign bad guy to scapegoat, that's unacceptable.

Of course, we're still not having the discussion about fixing what's wrong with the system. I'd love someone just once to say "Ok, I accept your premise. Now how do you propose we make our elections hack-proof?"

It's a nifty sleight of hand they've done here. They've called into question the legitimacy of the process and deflected the scrutiny from the process (and fixing it) to a third party boogeyman. If our elections were so easy to "hack" are we really supposed to think bombing Russia off the map fixes this?

As an aside, you were dead on in your earlier comment too. The US has interfered more directly in tons of elections worldwide for decades. What we're seeing now is a bit rich considering where it's coming from.

—

Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.

Submitted by Linda Wood on Sat, 09/09/2017 - 10:09am

Yes,

@Dr. John Carpenter

Thank you for stating this disconnect so well. I wanted to respond to your earlier comment also that they are working so hard to take focus off of the email content of their having committed fraud at the DNC, but also that they never mention the Electoral College. They never even point to it as a factor in Hillary "losing." She won the election, by quite a bit. The Electoral College process is what elected Donald Trump, and I guess the DNC doesn't want to change that system.

Submitted by Dr. John Carpenter on Sat, 09/09/2017 - 5:15pm

Electoral College

@Linda Wood Yeah, the EC is another one that I seems to remember coming up before with someone else who won the popular and lost the EC. Seems like it may have been that Gore guy again...

I came to the same conclusion about that too. Obviously the system is working as they believe it should. Otherwise, they'd have moved to fix it or at the very least not blamed a third party candidate whose totals were minuscule for "costing" them the election. Hey wait, that sounds familiar too.

—

Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.

Submitted by MrWebster on Sat, 09/09/2017 - 12:28pm

FB reveals how Putin did his magic.

Here are the key points directly from the FB press release.

https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2017/09/information-operations-update/

In reviewing the ads buys, we have found approximately $100,000 in ad spending from June of 2015 to May of 2017...

The vast majority of ads run by these accounts didn’t specifically reference the US presidential election, voting or a particular candidate.

Rather, the ads and accounts appeared to focus on amplifying divisive social and political messages across the ideological spectrum — touching on topics from LGBT matters to race issues to immigration to gun rights.

About one-quarter of these ads were geographically targeted, and of those, more ran in 2015 than 2016.

The behavior displayed by these accounts to amplify divisive messages was consistent with the techniques mentioned in the white paper we released in April about information operations.

So Putin as able to put Trump in office by ads which by a vast majority mentioned no candidate but which started in 2015 before any primary and before Trump was nominated. And doing this by posting what looked like "policy ads" which ran the entire ideological spectrum. And of those targeted position ads, most were published even one primary was held.

It is looking that the Putin must be counted one of America's political geniuses to help elect a candidate without mentioning his name even before it was known who would be the candidate.

Submitted by Not Henry Kissinger on Sat, 09/09/2017 - 2:15pm

So with Antifa blowing up in their faces...

so spectacularly, the Dems have decided to double back down on the anti-Russian thing.

This pathetic flailing would be funny if it weren't so irresponsibly dangerous.

—

The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?