Sign in to follow this  
Contumacious Tom

Ru$$ian $pending

Recommended Posts

PANIC!!!
 

Quote

 

According to Facebook, the ads bought by the Internet Research Agency represented "four-thousandths of one percent (0.004%) of content in News Feed, or approximately 1 out of 23,000 pieces of content." The Times concedes that "Russia-linked posts represented a minuscule amount of content compared with the billions of posts that flow through users' News Feeds every day." Between 2015 and 2017, the paper notes, "people in the United States saw more than 11 trillion posts from pages on Facebook."

The Russian contribution on other platforms looks similarly unimpressive. Twitter Acting General Counsel Sean Edgett testified that "the 1.4 million election-related Tweets that we identified through our retrospective review as generated by Russian-linked, automated accounts constituted less than three-quarters of a percent (0.74%) of the overall election-related Tweets on Twitter at the time." The Times admits that tweets by Russian operatives posing as Americans "may have added only modestly to the din of genuine American voices in the pre-election melee," and "many of the suspect posts were not widely shared."

Still, the paper insists, the tweets "helped fuel a fire of anger and suspicion in a polarized country."

 

They threw a match at the inferno! It changed EVERYTHING!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Mickey Rat said:

The US government would never attempt such a thing. This is war!

We have our own propaganda operations. I hope they're more effective than the flood of propaganda that Russia unleashed.

Less than 1% of (mostly ignored anyway) Tweets?

And on FB "four-thousandths of one percent (0.004%) of content in News Feed, or approximately 1 out of 23,000 pieces of content."

Changed EVERYTHING I tell ya.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anyone here actually see any of the Ru$$ian ad$ that bought our election? I didn't. Unless maybe something I ignored on FB was Ru$$ian. If they wanted to get my attention they should have put a boat in the ad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting that.   The lefties here will ignore it because it blows their argument out of the water.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it hard to fathom why the righties here will believe audits conducted by Facebook and Twitter on themselves. I guess it's because those reports fit their narrative.

While I don't speak for the lefties, it seems to me that the Facebook and Twitter storms are merely a distraction from the real issue, which is how much influence did the Russians have on the Trump and Clinton campaigns. I think that's what ALL of us should be concerned about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only lesson from this is despite the claimed left leaning bias of Silicon Valley:  The Uber rich work in their own self interest, far removed from the common ilk of humanity.  Lack of regulations returns us to the gilded age or introduces us to the Russian Oligarcy.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Remodel said:

I find it hard to fathom why the righties here will believe audits conducted by Facebook and Twitter on themselves. I guess it's because those reports fit their narrative.

While I don't speak for the lefties, it seems to me that the Facebook and Twitter storms are merely a distraction from the real issue, which is how much influence did the Russians have on the Trump and Clinton campaigns. I think that's what ALL of us should be concerned about.

I'm not sure why they'd lie? Lying to Congress is sometimes a serious crime and I'm not sure there's a case to be made that FB or Twitter are rabid Trump supporting companies.

Did you see any of the ads the changed everything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, badlatitude said:

The Washington Post already has an article that fully nine people in Trump's orbit had contact with Russians during the campaign, and later during the transition. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/at-least-nine-people-in-trumps-orbit-had-contact-with-russians-during-campaign-and-transition/2017/11/05/07c9993c-bf4c-11e7-959c-fe2b598d8c00_story.html?utm_term=.9a784e824edc


That article commented on the thread topic:
 

Quote

 

Facebook and other social media companies provided more details about how their platforms were manipulated through what outside researchers have said was a sophisticated campaign to mimic American political conversation with the intention of shaping the behavior of American voters — and in some cases by remotely organizing political rallies in U.S. cities.

Facebook, for instance, acknowledged that on its platform alone, posts created by Russian operatives may have been seen by as many as 126 million users. That’s in addition to 11 million potentially reached by Russian-bought Facebook ads, and 20 million by posts on Instagram, which Facebook owns.

 

126 million might have seen them, but apparently no one here did.

I liked the topic article's response to that bit of fearmongering:

Quote

Yes, and since the post you are reading is available on the internet, it could potentially be seen by 3.6 billion people.

11 million ads sounds a lot more scary than

Quote

"four-thousandths of one percent (0.004%) of content in News Feed, or approximately 1 out of 23,000 pieces of content."

The lack of that context reeks of bias of omission to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good rant on this topic
 

Quote

 

Who knew the republic was so vulnerable that our elections could be monkeywrenched by Russian dirty-tricksters spending their office coffee budget on a motley collection of social media ads that would make the authors of Nigerian prince scam emails wince at their clumsiness?

Or, more likely, cynical politicians are making much ado about Putin and company's low-rent effort to make themselves look relevant in order to justify government interference in political speech. Just consider Sen. Dianne Feinstein's (D-Calif.) threat to Facebook, Google, and Twitter during Senate hearings over the clumsy Russky meddling: "You created these platforms, and now they're being misused. And you have to be the ones who do something about it—or we will."

Feinstein thinks government should exercise more control over speech? Such a shocker—unless you saw her try to smother encryption in 2016, or heard her insist in 2015 that edgy material like The Anarchist Cookbook "should be removed from the internet"...

Feinstein is hardly alone in these efforts at muzzling unwelcome voices—18 other senators joined her on that COICA vote. Alternet's Max Blumenthal points out that "the liberal Democrats in #TechHearings are most outspoken opponents of press freedom & supporters of media censorship," but the latest stab at regulating online political ads draws support from both sides of the aisle (co-sponsor Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) rivals Feinstein in the degree to which he disdains unfettered speech). So it's business as usual for legislators who apparently see everything as justification for a mass purchase of blue pencils.

...

It's not even clear who benefited from the supposedly super-powered Russian tweets. Contrary to early reports that the Russians were in the bag for Trump, the ads are all over the place message-wise. Sometimes written in broken English, the ideologically incoherent grab-bag promoted border-warrior memes, Black Lives Matter messages, anti-Trump rallies, Jesus arm-wrestling Satan on behalf of the Republican hopeful, and a buff, rainbow Bernie. Really. If they had a common purpose, it was to rile people up—the Internet equivalent of lighting a bag of dog crap aflame, setting it on the doorstep, and ringing the bell.

 

Nobody saw Rainbow Bernie?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/5/2017 at 6:01 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:

I'm not sure why they'd lie? Lying to Congress is sometimes a serious crime and I'm not sure there's a case to be made that FB or Twitter are rabid Trump supporting companies.

Did you see any of the ads the changed everything?

I don't spend time on Facebook or Twitter, and don't do much with social media at all. If the ads made it to mainstream media, particularly the WSJ, the NYT or one of the big three networks, then it's likely I saw them. I don't know about that. What do you think of Russian, or any other foreign government attempting to collude with Clinton or Trump or Vermin Supreme for that matter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Remodel said:

I don't spend time on Facebook or Twitter, and don't do much with social media at all. If the ads made it to mainstream media, particularly the WSJ, the NYT or one of the big three networks, then it's likely I saw them. I don't know about that. What do you think of Russian, or any other foreign government attempting to collude with Clinton or Trump or Vermin Supreme for that matter?

Your question is rather broad and gets into my opinion of whether Russians were just being charitable by donating to Bill's or Donald's foundation or wanted something from Hillary or Donald. That's not really what this thread is about.  Those are topics of real influence peddling, or not.

This is about silliness that shouldn't scare us.

Quote

Sometimes written in broken English, the ideologically incoherent grab-bag promoted border-warrior memes, Black Lives Matter messages, anti-Trump rallies, Jesus arm-wrestling Satan on behalf of the Republican hopeful, and a buff, rainbow Bernie.

What do I think about that? I think they're bad at buying our elections in this way. Almost as bad as Rimas is at sailing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not concerned about the effectiveness of the ads. 

I’m concerned about the Trump team requesting the GOP platform at their convention be stripped of any support for sanctions against Russia regarding Ukraine. 

A quid pro quo tying sanctions relief to  financial or political support from an adversarial country is treasonous. 

I don’t give a shit if the ads were effective. It’s the collusion with Russians, potential history of money laundering and double dealing I care about. 

Stick this thread up your lily white derrières you mealy mouthed apologists. Your lack of patriotism is showing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

I’m not concerned about the effectiveness of the ads. 

I’m concerned about the Trump team requesting the GOP platform at their convention be stripped of any support for sanctions against Russia regarding Ukraine. 

A quid pro quo tying sanctions relief to  financial or political support from an adversarial country is treasonous. 

I don’t give a shit if the ads were effective. It’s the collusion with Russians, potential history of money laundering and double dealing I care about. 

Stick this thread up your lily white derrières you mealy mouthed apologists. Your lack of patriotism is showing. 

 

There is no doubt that when Trump flipped a Palm Beach mansion, to a Russian oligarch, for twice what he had recently paid for it, was a clear case of money laundering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/10/2017 at 11:51 AM, Remodel said:

I don't spend time on Facebook or Twitter, and don't do much with social media at all. If the ads made it to mainstream media, particularly the WSJ, the NYT or one of the big three networks, then it's likely I saw them. I don't know about that. What do you think of Russian, or any other foreign government attempting to collude with Clinton or Trump or Vermin Supreme for that matter?

Since FB, YouTube, and Twitter are unregulated Putin can buy any adds he wants, and pay his troll army to lie without disclosure,    The broadcast compansies have rules to try to prevent this sort of thing,   The regs don’t control money in politics, but allow you to see what us superpac is buying the tv or radio ad.   Iran can run competing YouTube adds and infomercials for the Democrats next time and it will be just as good as Russia helping the Republicans.   Controlling paid trolls or even differentiating them from home grown idiots is hard enough.   Paid product by foreign intelligence agencies borrowing an unscrupulous version of the Madison ave playbook troubles me.  

We know it works, as Johnson proved in 1964.  Huge money wouldn’t get spent on ads any more then it is spent on campaign donations, if there wasn’t a strong return on investment.    In a close race smart use of novel advertising can have a huge affect.    Since many people my age and younger rarely watch TV, Clinton’s fossil campaign of tv commercials was wasted.   I see a hundred YouTube ads for every tv spot.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Lark said:

Since FB, YouTube, and Twitter are unregulated Putin can buy any adds he wants, and pay his troll army to lie without disclosure

Yes, and they're apparently really bad at it and are NO reason to try to regulate expression or even expre$$ion on the internet.

Rainbow Bernie may be scary but censors, or cen$or$, are scarier to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, phillysailor said:

I’m concerned about the Trump team requesting the GOP platform at their convention be stripped of any support for sanctions against Russia regarding Ukraine. 

A quid pro quo tying sanctions relief to  financial or political support from an adversarial country is treasonous. 

I agree with you and think the sanctions should have been removed for being stupid, not because Russians asked or a$ked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, bhyde said:

Proof right here. Putin denied it and Trump believes it. Both are lying sacks of shit.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/11/world/asia/trump-putin-election.html

 

Referring to the former heads of 3 US intelligence agencies:

“I mean, give me a break — they’re political hacks,” Mr. Trump said.

What a class act the deplorables elected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:


Uh oh. Scary Russians have figured out how to submit form letters that no one reads?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, badlatitude said:
During one week in early December, for example, roughly 20 percent of the activity from accounts tied to Russian intelligence for propaganda was focused on undermining faith in Mueller’s investigation into potential collusion between Russia and the successful campaign of Donald Trump, according to research by The Alliance for Securing Democracy." 
 

I decided to go look at the source for this claim, hoping for something as funny as Rainbow Bernie.

 

Quote

 

Top Themes

Updated on December 8, 6:10 PM

Between December 1 and December 8, we examined 60 articles that were among the top URLs shared by Kremlin-oriented accounts on Twitter. The most prominent theme (featured in 18% of examined URLs) was an attempt to discredit the FBI, especially after it was revealed that an agent had been demoted for sending anti-Trump texts. The Michael Flynn plea was the subject of 15% of URLs; of those URLs, 45% attacked the credibility of the FBI and the remaining 55% criticized ABC for an erroneous Trump-Flynn report or the Obama administration for allegedly “green lighting” communication between Flynn and Ambassador Kislyak. Other prominent topics were the IOC’s decision to ban Russia from the 2018 Winter Games (8%), the not-guilty verdict in the Kate Steinle case/immigration issues (7%), and sexual misconduct (14% – half attacked accused Democrats and the other half defended Roy Moore). Articles on geopolitics featured Syria (6 URLs), immigration in the EU (2 URLs), Ukraine (1 URL), and North Korea (1 URL). The article on North Korea was the only URL critical of President Trump.

 

OK, so 18% is "roughly 20%" just not quite as scary.

Assuming it's true that these accounts (how many of them?) are Kremlin-oriented (whatever that means), the BIG PANIC here is over 60 tweets?

Or, about the daily output of the President, if he's not too busy?

The 60 Tweets That Destroyed America sounds like a best-selling title. It might be worth examining each and every one.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I decided to go look at the source for this claim, hoping for something as funny as Rainbow Bernie.

 

OK, so 18% is "roughly 20%" just not quite as scary.

Assuming it's true that these accounts (how many of them?) are Kremlin-oriented (whatever that means), the BIG PANIC here is over 60 tweets?

Or, about the daily output of the President, if he's not too busy?

The 60 Tweets That Destroyed America sounds like a best-selling title. It might be worth examining each and every one.

 

Your corrosive values are a nice match the intentions of these Russians. You will become Roger Stone if you ever grow up. 

Tom Ray, I would expect to find you somewhere with some propaganda,  defending Russians, Here it is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/11/2017 at 6:27 AM, phillysailor said:

Stick this thread up your lily white derrières you mealy mouthed apologists. Your lack of patriotism is showing. 

This.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Tom Ray, I would expect to find you somewhere with some propaganda,  defending Russians, Here it is. 

Joe Calhoun, I just find it really funny that newsweek wastes any time at all trying to work up a PANIC over 60 tweets that happened during one week in December. You'll accept their claim that these are Kremlin-oriented (whatever that means) tweets without evidence, so we'll assume it's true for the sake of discussion.

So the Russians somehow got 60 whole tweets onto Twitter during one week and changed the social fabric of our society or something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Joe Calhoun, I just find it really funny that newsweek wastes any time at all trying to work up a PANIC over 60 tweets that happened during one week in December. You'll accept their claim that these are Kremlin-oriented (whatever that means) tweets without evidence, so we'll assume it's true for the sake of discussion.

So the Russians somehow got 60 whole tweets onto Twitter during one week and changed the social fabric of our society or something?

Soft-pedalling the Russian behavior fits you just fine. Get a Nixon tatoo on your back, mate. Be like Roger Stone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mid said:

Hmmm.

That's about half of the bot accounts, so half were ignored entirely.

Quote

Twitter Acting General Counsel Sean Edgett testified that "the 1.4 million election-related Tweets that we identified through our retrospective review as generated by Russian-linked, automated accounts constituted less than three-quarters of a percent (0.74%) of the overall election-related Tweets on Twitter at the time."

So if half of the accounts were ignored entirely, the big panic here is about 0.37% of election-related Tweets.

Another illustration of how Rainbow Bernie changed everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

That's about half of the bot accounts, so half were ignored entirely.

err , no.

hell of a stretch to say that because the tweets where not followed , liked or retweeted they where ignored .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Mid said:

err , no.

hell of a stretch to say that because the tweets where not followed , liked or retweeted they where ignored .

OK. I'm @tropboat on Twitter.

I'm pretty sure no one follows, likes, or retweets any of my exceedingly rare tweets.

So my account is being __________________.

(Fill in the blank)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

viewed , and you've absolutely no idea by how many .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mid said:

viewed , and you've absolutely no idea by how many .

Yes, and since the post you are reading is available on the internet, it could potentially be seen by 3.6 billion people.

And maybe all 0.74% of election-related tweets really did get attention, not just the ones that provoked some reaction.

And maybe Rainbow Bernie changed everything!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

That's about half of the bot accounts, so half were ignored entirely.

thus your statement is false .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Mid said:
1 hour ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

That's about half of the bot accounts, so half were ignored entirely.

thus your statement is false .

Not to mention silly, comparing Tweets to accounts to US viewers.

Which is why I put your post in this thread. More Twitterstat silliness. 677,775 of us reacted to Russian spambots and I still can't find anyone who actually saw Rainbow Bernie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

OK. I'm @tropboat on Twitter.

I'm pretty sure no one follows, likes, or retweets any of my exceedingly rare tweets.

So my account is being __________________.

(Fill in the blank)

Your twitter account posts are kind of botty....do you get paid or is it out of the sheer admiration of the products/sites you recommend?

(no sarcasm)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, VhmSays said:

Your twitter account posts are kind of botty....do you get paid or is it out of the sheer admiration of the products/sites you recommend?

(no sarcasm)

I used to post links to sites we own, so yes, I was sorta getting paid for those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I used to post links to sites we own, so yes, I was sorta getting paid for those.

That explains that...not 100% sure you are human but will do for now :lol: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Twitter is protecting users from Ru$$ian $pending
 

Quote

 

The folks from the government are here to protect us from extremism, fake news, and hate speech, and they've strong-armed some media company friends to help.

"Twitter is sending out messages to people telling them that, for their own good, they are documenting that the user has either followed, cited or re-tweeted an account Twitter decided is linked to Russia & its propaganda efforts," journalist Glenn Greenwald tweeted over the weekend. "That's not creepy at all."

The thread to which Greenwald linked featured an example of such an email, which is connected to Twitter's promise last fall to the U.S. Congress to cooperate "with congressional investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election." The company was caught up in the frenzy in Washington, D.C. to pin the country's political turmoil not on angry Americans, but rather on Russia's clumsy, low-rent news-spinning through social media.

 

"As previously announced," Twitter notes on its blog, "we identified and suspended a number of accounts that were potentially connected to a propaganda effort by a Russian government-linked organization… Consistent with our commitment to transparency, we are emailing notifications to 677,775 people in the United States who followed one of these accounts or retweeted or liked a Tweet from these accounts during the election period."

Ummm… Thanks for that, Twitter. I'd hate to think that I'm paying attention to the "wrong" people.

...

To be sure, working against violent extremism sounds, on its face, like a good thing. But let's be clear that these are executives of media companies going before government officials to promise to suppress officially disapproved speech and to promote ideas and messages that the government supports. Historically, the sort of "hate speech" government officials tend to dislike most is that directed at them, and their definitions of "positive and moderate voices" most commonly apply to anything that strokes their egos.

 

The bolded part is exactly how I interpret DiFi's "do something about it or we will" and Trump's "let's revoke licenses" comments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

I would just like to know what Russia did, who helped them do it, what Russia is doing, and how we intend to stop Russia from doing anything to us in the future. 


They brought us Rainbow Bernie. Why would anyone want to stop that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jocal505 said:
10 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Yes, as long as you keep doing that dirty deed, you are an unwitting, perhaps witless, ally.

How petty, how small. Please focus on this problem. Jill Stein got trolled by the Russians, all the way to Moscow in 2015. They used her in the election as a lever in 2016, to split Americans. 

Do you have more Russia whispering this morning? Thirteen Russian spies indicted yesterday; they had used the Libertarian presitentuial candidate as a divisivel tool for their purposes. Carry on, like a douche.


Sure, I'd be interested in talking about these things. You're not exactly what I consider a reliable source, though. How about some links to the stories you've summarized?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/1/2017 at 4:47 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:


LMAO. Dude, they're about as effective as the NSA.

The Russia Whisperer is quiet this morning. Because Mueller managed to break into the files of a ring of thirteen Russian spies.

 

WTF is this stuff?

On 12/27/2017 at 3:47 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:

So the Russians somehow got 60 whole tweets onto Twitter during one week and changed the social fabric of our society or something?

 

On 1/20/2018 at 2:12 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

More Twitterstat silliness. 677,775 of us reacted to Russian spambots and I still can't find anyone who actually saw Rainbow Bernie.

 

On 11/6/2017 at 2:28 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:
Quote

"four-thousandths of one percent (0.004%) of content in News Feed, or approximately 1 out of 23,000 pieces of content."

The lack of that context reeks of bias of omission to me.

On 1/20/2018 at 12:43 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

So if half of the accounts were ignored entirely, the big panic here is about 0.37% of election-related Tweets.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

The Russia Whisperer is quiet this morning. Because Mueller managed to break into the files of a ring of thirteen Russian spies.

 

WTF is this stuff?

 

 

 

Can you deny any of those numbers?

The social media stats showed that the majority of the views were after the election and the russian involvement revealed.  After the fact curiosity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Saorsa said:

Can you deny any of those numbers?

The social media stats showed that the majority of the views were after the election and the russian involvement revealed.  After the fact curiosity.

Parse these numbers to equal harmlessness, if that's what they say. That's nice, it even works for me.

But we don't know what went on here. We see here a 1.2 million per month budget as of Sept. 2016.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jocal505 said:

Parse these numbers to equal harmlessness, if that's what they say. That's nice, it even works for me.

But we don't know what went on here. We see here a 1.2 million per month budget as of Sept. 2016.

I could spend 500K on  a supercar but still need to manage traffic.

Look at what Zuckerman spent on NJ schools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About the spy leader oligarch guy. Evgeny Prigozhin.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/16/world/europe/prigozhin-russia-indictment-mueller.html

https://meduza.io/en/feature/2016/06/13/evgeny-prigozhin-s-right-to-be-forgotten

A former ski athlete, did hard time for nine years, and worked the food business afterwards, going from hot dog carts to the only convenience store chain in Moscow. Created a trendy floating restaurant in Moscow, which caught Putin's eye. He personally served dinner to British Royalty, and served Putin and W. Bush. He lurks around head tables, like a waiter. Simultaneously, he obtained mega food contracts for schools and the  military.

Quietly, he began operating an internet mediaspin group in St. Petersburg to bolster Putin's image in Russia, and branched it into the Ukraine, then into the USA in 2014. He would supply spies with foodcarts for opposition protests. Began supplying contract mercenaries to Syria, and some were shot up Feb. 7 of this year, attracting publicity.

He is in bad graces in Moscow. evidently. His caravan of limos was busted for flowing thru traffic under blue lights and sirens. One of his thugs grabbed a camera from a citing officer. The citing officers ripped the sirens out of his vehicles and came after him in court.

Prigozhen is the waiter guy here...

 

 

Prighozen.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

jill stein.jpg

 

I hear that David Keane and Sheriff Clarke came to town with Jill NTTAWWT.

Quote

Clarke said little publicly about the event. Two weeks earlier, his office put out a vague press release noting that he would “travel to the Middle East and Asia beginning November 28, 2015 and returning December 13, 2015,” including that he’d “receive briefings on issues facing those regions and visit historic sites.”

But the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s Daniel Bice noticed that Clarke’s January 2016 ethics disclosure filing shed some light on the trip. Part one was $20,155 trip to Israel, paid for by the NRA Ring of Freedom. During his week-plus of travel there, he did a remote interview from Jerusalem for Fox Business Network. The remaining days were spent in Russia. His airfare to Moscow and visas, totaling $13,785.10, were paid for by Brownell; his $6000 worth of meals, hotel, transportation, and excursions were provided by the “All-Russia Public Organization ‘The Right to Bear Arms.’”

Clarke’s office declined to release any records to Bice about the trip, the reporter wrote, “saying it was personal — not official — travel, even though personal trips (a.k.a. vacations) are not supposed to be listed on the ethics form.”

https://thinkprogress.org/nra-and-russian-cousin-18f607d40240/

 

Quote
  • 2011
    2011 G. Kline Preston, a conservative lawyer in Nashville with business connections to Russia, introduces then-NRA president David Keene to Torshin, a powerful senator in Russia and close to President Vladimir Putin. Torshin, who styles himself as a gun enthusiast, is a lifetime NRA member. Around this time, Torshin’s young female aide, Maria Butina, createsRight to Bear Arms, a Russian version of the NRA and the first group of its kind in the country.
  • Fall 2013
    Fall 2013 Butina and Torshin host Keene and other American gun rights advocates at the Right to Bear Arms annual meeting in Moscow. Two hundred people take part in the event, the Washington Post will note, which includes a fashion show featuring clothes that have tailor-made pockets meant to conceal handguns. Around the same time, Spanish authorities build a case against Torshin for allegedly laundering money through Spanish banks and properties for the Russian mob. (Torshin has denied any connections to organized crime.)
  • April 2014
    April 2014 Butina and Torshin attend the NRA’s annual meeting in Indianapolis, where Butina is treated as a VIP. She presents a plaque to then-NRA president Jim Porter, and appears at one of the group’s events as a guest of David Keene. She is also asked to address attendees at the Ring of Freedom dinner, a special banquet that honors individuals who make high-dollar contributions to the NRA.
  • December 2015
    Dec. 2015 Torshin is appointed as a deputy governor of the Russian central bank. Meanwhile, the Right to Bear Arms hosts NRA figures in Russia for a second time. Those making the trip include Keene; NRA board member Pete Brownell (who is now serving as NRA president); Joe Gregory, head of the NRA program for donors who give $1 million or more; and NRA benefactor Dr. Arnold Goldschlager and his daughter, NRA Women’s Leadership Forum executive committee member Hilary Goldschalger. Also along for the junket is then-Milwaukee County sheriff David Clarke, a controversial gun rights icon. While in Russia, Brownell and Keene are photographed with Dmitry Rogozin, the Deputy Prime Minister of Russia who is also an NRA supporter.
  • May 2016
    May 2016 Paul Erickson, a veteran Republican operative and NRA member with access to both the group’s leaders and officials in the Russian government, emails Rick Dearborn, a Trump campaign advisor. Erickson is looking to facilitate a “first contact” meeting between the campaign and Torshin at the upcoming spring convention in Louisville, Kentucky, where Trump will be featured as a speaker and receive the NRA’s early endorsement for president. Erickson writes, “The Kremlin believes that the only possibility of a true reset in this relationship would be with a new Republican in the White House.” The meeting never takes place. But at the convention, which occurs later in the month, Torshin shares a dinner table with Donald Trump Jr.
  • November 2016
    Nov. 2016 Butina, now a graduate student at American University, in Washington, D.C., hosts a birthday party attended by Erickson and Trump campaign aides. At the event, she claims that she was involved in communications between Russia and the campaign, according to the Daily Beast.
  • 2017-18
    2017-2018 The investigation into Russian election meddling gathers steam, following revelations of multiple contacts between Trump campaign staffers and Russian officials, and of a wide-ranging Russian effort to sow discord and boost the candidacy of the Republican nominee. If the NRA used Russian money to help finance its efforts in support of Donald Trump, it would be a violation of American election laws and likely cause serious reputational damage to a group that claims to defend American freedom.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

 

 

jill stein.jpg

What's your point?  December 2015 photo prior to Flynn having anything to do with Trump and after he had served as director of DIA for Obama.  He was a speaker at the event.

I have no idea what Jill Stein was doing there.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/timeline-michael-flynn-obama-trump-troubles-article-1.3147873

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 Reasons To Not Feed The Russian Troll Hysteria

Quote

A post promoting a "buff" Bernie Sanders coloring book, for instance, noted that "the coloring is something that suits for all people."

I wonder if the book featured Rainbow Bernie? How did he lose anyway?

Meanwhile, Twitter is shutting down a couple of this Russian's bots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Tomspin is fun to debunk. Volokh was just busted ^^^, he was working five Twitter feeds for Libertarian causes.

Tom's other link is also from the Libertarian site reason.com, from which Tom indoctrinates himself (and us) every morning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m afraid to look at the whole thread given it was started by out Pedant-in-Chief

but are Ru$$ians “the people”?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The premise of this thread is that the Russian influence was minimal, because the Facebook advertising spend was only a certain dollar amount. What this fails to take into consideration is:

  • most of the Russian Troll Farm activity was actually on Twitter
  • setting up Facebook Groups, which the Farm did a lot of, doesn't cost anything and therefore doesn't fall under the amount they spent
  • commenting on Facebook Groups posts, individuals posts, and any other place on Facebook doesn't cost anything, and therefore doesn't fall under the amount they spent

Oh and here's the clincher: "Russia *only* spent XX amount trying to influence our democratic election, so that makes it okay."

Yah... no. It' doesn't.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I’m afraid to look at the whole thread given it was started by out Pedant-in-Chief

but are Ru$$ians “the people”?

Yeah, there's no way someone like you could learn anything from me.

But I'd say that some illegal Russian immigrants probably are. Of course, I'd say it over here.

 

The premise of this thread is that the Russian influence was minimal, because the Facebook advertising spend was only a certain dollar amount. What this fails to take into consideration is:

  • most of the Russian Troll Farm activity was actually on Twitter
  • setting up Facebook Groups, which the Farm did a lot of, doesn't cost anything and therefore doesn't fall under the amount they spent
  • commenting on Facebook Groups posts, individuals posts, and any other place on Facebook doesn't cost anything, and therefore doesn't fall under the amount they spent

Oh and here's the clincher: "Russia *only* spent XX amount trying to influence our democratic election, so that makes it okay."

Yah... no. It' doesn't.

The topic post comments on the miniscule amount of (mostly ignored) Twitter activity.

Getting something to actually appear in front of me on FB usually means I've chosen to pay attention to you or you have paid. So it would cost money if anyone were interested in my vote, which they didn't seem to be. Or maybe I successfully ignored them, since their posts were unlikely to contain a boat picture and thus unlikely to attract my notice.

The other premise of this thread is that they're really fucking bad at it, mostly because their English is bad and their understanding of our culture is worse. Rainbow Bernie changed nothing.

The other premise is that this is a dangerous woman:

"Just consider Sen. Dianne Feinstein's (D-Calif.) threat to Facebook, Google, and Twitter during Senate hearings over the clumsy Russky meddling: "You created these platforms, and now they're being misused. And you have to be the ones who do something about it—or we will." "

What happened to the little quote button? Anyway, I don't want to see her DO SOMETHING to censor internet companies. Whatever dangers from Russians may lurk (as yet undetected by me) on Facebook, I'm more scared of her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't think the election could generate anything funnier than Rainbow Bernie but I was wrong.

7 minutes ago, Mid said:
Quote

To figure out how tweeting influenced votes, the study authors looked at the share of pro-leave or pro-Trump tweets by geography to check how closely votes were correlated with Twitter activity. They then figured out how much the accounts they defined as bots added to the volume of tweets advocating Brexit or Trump, and extrapolated from there.

LMAO. They extrapolated from guesses, gave it a number, and call themselves "researchers."

That's funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/25/2018 at 8:42 PM, SloopJonB said:
On 5/25/2018 at 8:11 PM, mad said:

How did we go from UK knife law to Tom’s.22 discussion?

Every thread ends up discussing his fucking .22


Not this one.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/18/2018 at 12:32 AM, jocal505 said:

About the spy leader oligarch guy. Evgeny Prigozhin.

Indicted Russian Oligarch Yevgeny Prigozhin Accused of Ordering Attacks on Opponents

Quote

A Russian oligarch charged in the U.S. with trying to sway the 2016 election ordered “at least one killing” and attacks on several of his opponents, according to a report in a Russian newspaper.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/indicted-russian-oligarch-yevgeny-prigozhin-accused-of-ordering-attacks-on-opponents?source=articles&via=rss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Volokh has a little fun with inclusivity.
 

Quote

 

temp2.jpg?w=600

UPDATE: Wait, I missed the most important part!

The Russian "играл" means "played," and "проитрал" means "lost." (True fact.) The Russian "голосовал" means "voted," so "проголосовал" means ....

A secret message?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The IRA Changed Everything!

(And government censors need to rescue us!)
 

Quote

 

Yesterday saw the release of reports documenting attempts by the Russia-based, Putin-backed Internet Research Agency (IRA) to influence the 2016 presidential election via social media messaging. Both reports were written for the U.S. Senate, one by Oxford University's Computational Propaganda Project and analytics firm Graphika (online here) and the other by New Knowledge (online here), and both were written up by major papers such as The New York Times and Washington Post. They are being used as proof positive that American social media is dominated by foreign trolls who are duping American voters in all sorts of sinister new ways that call for sweeping new regulations of virtually all aspects of online life.

...

Perspective here is key. When it comes to foreign influence, the CIA says that Moscow has been trying to influence presidential outcomes via covert propaganda since at least since 1964, when Nikita Khrushchev threw his weight behind Lyndon Johnson over Barry Goldwater due to the latter's higher level of bellicosity toward the Soviet Union and communism in general. The amount of impressions, likes, retweets, shares, and rubles that get thrown around in the reports sound fantastic until you zoom out to the bigger picture. As TechCrunch reported a year ago, for instance, Clinton and Trump spent a combined $81 million on Facebook ads while the IRA ponied up $46,000, or 0.05 percent as much.

 

They threw a match at the inferno! It changed EVERYTHING!!!

I think that Hillary lost because she's a policy wonk who scores about 1 on the charisma scale and would never be considered as a candidate if not married to Bill, who bent the needle on the charisma scale when he pegged it too hard.

Note to TeamD: he's likable. She's not. This matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How's the U$ $pending to interfere with Russian elections stack up in comparison? Come on you hypocrites answer the question before you start pissing all over yourselves. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/3/2017 at 7:16 AM, Contumacious Tom said:

They threw a match at the inferno! It changed EVERYTHING!!!

A new book has reached pretty much this conclusion.

Quote

The fake news generated by Russian and other foreign plants is trivial compared to that produced by our own political parties and their homegrown partisan and activist allies. John Sides, Michael Tesler, Lynn Vavreck's new book Identity Crisis, the most thorough social science analysis of the 2016 election, concludes that the impact of Russian-generated fake news was virtually undetectable in the data, and certainly trivial compared to that of homegrown misinformation, xenophobic attitudes and partisan polarization, which helped Trump eke out a narrow victory.

And, as Coyne points out, our own political parties routinely spread politically potent misinformation on a far larger and more effective scale than foreign-generated bots do. That was certainly true of Donald Trump's campaign, which relied extensively on bogus claims about immigration and trade. But while Trump is particularly brazen in his lies and deceptions, conventional politicians also routinely use such tactics, even if more subtly and less indiscriminately. It's hard to point to any one lie told by Trump that was as successful as Barack Obama's "if you like your health care plan, you can keep it," a deserving winner of Politifact's 2013 "Lie of the Year" award. I would be happy to see Trump removed from office. But we should not imagine that the problem of political disinformation is limited to him and his supporters, or that it is mainly caused by Russian plants infiltrating pir otherwise largely pure and wholesome political environment.

Indeed, Coyne's best insight is that the true root of the problem is not the supply of fake news, but the demand for it.

An inferno does require fuel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Story Problem!

Of all the bullets spent in WW1, what percentage was represented by the rounds used to shoot the Archduke Ferdinand?

Bueller?

Unless anyone wants to argue the Russians suck at what they do?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Amati said:

Unless anyone wants to argue the Russians suck at what they do?

They kinda do suck. Read post 10 and follow links and get a chuckle.

But I think a bigger reason that

Quote

the impact of Russian-generated fake news was virtually undetectable in the data

is just what I said above. They threw a match. Matches burn. That'll work. But at an inferno, so the impact was undetectable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this