Where exactly did you see that? I only pointed out that the US has meddled in other country's politics for decades. How is that 'standing for Russia' ?I think it's great you're standing up for Russia. So misunderstood.
Where exactly did you see that? I only pointed out that the US has meddled in other country's politics for decades. How is that 'standing for Russia' ?I think it's great you're standing up for Russia. So misunderstood.
Max, lets for a moment assume either is not actually stupid.
It won't have been much in the way of ads (though it may have been millions, yet to see), supplying intelligently creative memes, clever arguments beyond the intellect of US trailer trash etc. would have helped an awful lot. Co-coordinating marches..
Trump had a small core staff, it is somewhat about numbers but they had a lot of help.
Swinging the election? The margin swinging the electoral was truly tiny however Hillary had a few own-goals that really took away her massive advantage.
It may have been enough in reality. Two things will haunt them, Hillary's "Deplorables" comment and Trump's "Russia, if you are listening".
Regardless, the first results are in. Putin is exposed and his similar actions in Europe will now have even more attention.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-days-of-his-campaign/?utm_term=.e9378c27ad81
Here from the Washington Post, 100k, other sites have done a better job of breaking down where it got spent like i said more than half was spent before trumps nomination.......
Its a pretty weak argument saying "Well the election was won by this amount" There is very easily quantifiable numbers on internet marketing....... theres a reason Hillary didnt spend all she had on facebook, "Pay per click" advertising haS less than 1 in 100 success rate........ GWB could attest to this.
so you take 100k, cut it in half since 50 was spent before the election, now you are saying that the russians with 50k managed to swing the election......
Hillary spent 500 million more than Trump why didnt she just pour it all into facebook ads?
Id be willing to bet though i cant be sure that there were other governments who spent more than 100k trying to advertise on facebook...... You hit the nail on the head, there is tens of millions of non citizens around the world talking about U.S. politics, (myself included) but supposedly 100k of Russian facebook ads is beyond the pale..... lol its just comical.
Id be willing to bet if you put a dollar amount on all of the foreign agencies and interest groups who spent money on the internet trying to influence the election in one way or the other the number would be in the hundreds of millions if not billions.
Id be willing to bet that There was lots of groups supporting NAFTA who advertised during the elction on the internet, id be willing to bet there is lots of groups who supported the paris climate accord who advertised during the election, id be willing to bet my life, that neither of those groups spent less than 100k..........
To imply 100k in facebook ads is even statistically relevant is laughable to begin with, but to imply 100k in facebook ads swung an election is just downright comical.
Supposedly the Russians are the shrewdest operators of the internet we have ever seen, they are getting more than 1 vote per dollar, fuck that 1/100th of a cent per click stuff the russians know how marketing is done, 1 click 1 vote.![]()
Your side touted being able to stretch a dollar as a virtue
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ffers-no-fundraisers-no-media-consultant.html
Sure it would have made a diffference..... it was infintesimally small though..... are you naieve enough to think that NAFTA supporters, Canadians, TPP supporters, Keystone supporters, etc werent creating memes? LOL, i think it is incredibly naieve to think Russia was the only one with 100k in the game.
Why is Russia somehow more relevant than the thousands of other foreign special interestests who tried to influence an election? Particularly when Russia didnt spent jack shit.
It's one thing to be a lobbyist for a foreign government (as long as registered). It's entirely another to make contributions that tips the scale in favor of a presidential candidate.
He didnt claim to be able to turn water into wine, check out the "Click conversion rate" which is a well known number for internet advertising, the odds someone clicks on an ad it like 1 in 100 to begin with, then youd have to factor the odds it changed peoples opinions, which would be even lower, it might have changed like 1 in 100000 peoples opinions. Its just comical for anyone who understands how internet advertising works.
The margin was minuscule.
However 100k no matter how often you repeat it does not reflect the real expenditure.
3 Russian companies conducting what they called information warfare against the US. Internet Research agency LLC based in St Petersburg. It employed hundreds of people with an annual budget of many millions. They assigned over 80 staff (of hundreds) to the US project.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...indicted-for-interfering-in-us-elections.html
Rod explains it in the top video.
This is not trivial or small. It is a first result and will go to trial.
LOL, you think that lobbyists in Israel werent picking a candidate? Id be willing to bet 90% of israeli donations went to trump, and 90% of mexican and canadian donations probabvly went to hillary, if you think that countries arent picking sides you are being naieve sorry man, thats all i can say.