Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Advertisers spent $419 million on Super Bowl ads this Super Bowl. Clinton spent $1 billion running for POTUS. The Russians spent less than $1 million trying to defeat or at least slow down Clinton.
You are really comparing these examples? If it really worked that way advertisers would just create fake facebook posts and save $400 million dollars. And Clinton donors could have saved a bundle.
The Russians had no impact on the 2016 election. Except in calling the left into action to subvert the presidency post election.
There is a tremendous difference between paid political advertisements and Russians posing as American citizens on social media sites.
Advertisers spent $419 million on Super Bowl ads this Super Bowl. Clinton spent $1 billion running for POTUS. The Russians spent less than $1 million trying to defeat or at least slow down Clinton.
You are really comparing these examples? If it really worked that way advertisers would just create fake facebook posts and save $400 million dollars. And Clinton donors could have saved a bundle.
The Russians had no impact on the 2016 election. Except in calling the left into action to subvert the presidency post election.
Yes, I am comparing them.
And you missed the point of my comparison.
Super Bowl ads cost what they do because they work and because people rush towards them with great anticipation just like they rush towards outlets that enforce their beliefs.
We are primed to “buy” a message, the costs are almost immaterial.
The only way that you could say with any certainty that the Russians didn’t influence the election is if you can prove that NO ONE was moved by any of their messaging, that it wasn’t shared or re-tweeted or repeated verbatim.
Again, there are people who didn’t vote for Clinton because “pizza-gate.”
People didn’t vote for Obama because birtherism.
Can you, with a straight face, honestly say that people are not influenced by even low cost messaging if it confirms what they want to believe?
I would love to know how you came to that conclusion. Have you read Glenn Simpson's testimony? You really should before you embarrass yourself further. You obviously have no idea who Steele is or anything about the dossier.
Trial doesn't matter. It is simply further evidence that Russians were interfering with our election, something Donald John Trump still refuses to acknowledge. Also, more dots that connect. Mueller is going about this surgically.
*tick* *tick* *tick*
Indeed. But the Trump cheerleaders continue referring to Hillary/Obama as the villains
I would love to know how you came to that conclusion. Have you read Glenn Simpson's testimony? You really should before you embarrass yourself further. You obviously have no idea who Steele is or anything about the dossier.
It's a fact that Steele is a foreign agent.
It's a fact that he was spreading misinformation to attack Trump, and influence the outcome of the election.
This is what the Russians were doing that just got indicted, so when is Mueller going to indict Steele?
There is a tremendous difference between paid political advertisements and Russians posing as American citizens on social media sites.
Yes a tremendous difference. The paid advertising worked and the social media stuff had no effect. Remember Clinton won the popular vote by a wide margin.
There is also a big difference between Russian nationals posting on social media sites and Trump colluding with Russia.
I hope these Russian goons get brought to justice however it apparently had no impact on the election and not only gets us no closer to a trump russia collusion but vindicates Trump in any involvement in this. Which at least was hinted at by the left when the face book / Russia stories broke.
Yes, I am comparing them.
And you missed the point of my comparison.
Super Bowl ads cost what they do because they work and because people rush towards them with great anticipation just like they rush towards outlets that enforce their beliefs.
We are primed to “buy” a message, the costs are almost immaterial.
Can you, with a straight face, honestly say that people are not influenced by even low cost messaging if it confirms what they want to believe?
Really?
Two obvious points:
1. Clinton won the popular vote by a wide margin. A point the left has repeated incessantly unless they are trying to claim the Russian effected the outcome of the election.
2. In the indictment of Russians Mueller stated: The results of the election were not impacted.
What else do you need?
Are you saying Mueller is wrong?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
