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.
"Limited" means? This isn't the 20th century anymore. Social media has opened new avenues for the sort of coordinated propaganda effort that Russia engaged in. And did you even bother to read the post you were responding to? I rejected the notion that Russian interference delegitimizes Trump's election. It doesn't. At most, it counterbalanced the massive, COORDINATED mainstream media bias in favor of Hillary. This is what conservatives SHOULD BE SAYING. Instead, conservatives are denying the assistance Trump received from Russia. This is a weak and easily discredited position.
100,000 in Facebook ads counterbalanced a billion dollar campaign and mainstream media bias? Lmao
"Limited" means? This isn't the 20th century anymore. Social media has opened new avenues for the sort of coordinated propaganda effort that Russia engaged in. And did you even bother to read the post you were responding to? I rejected the notion that Russian interference delegitimizes Trump's election. It doesn't. At most, it counterbalanced the massive, COORDINATED mainstream media bias in favor of Hillary. This is what conservatives SHOULD BE SAYING. Instead, conservatives are denying the assistance Trump received from Russia. This is a weak and easily discredited position.
Except the liberals are not specific at all in what help the Russians gave Trump, how it swung the independent voters, and how it overcame Hillary's billion dollar campaign
100,000 in Facebook ads counterbalanced a billion dollar campaign and mainstream media bias? Lmao
I said, "at most" it counterbalanced the mainstream media - i.e., whatever its extent, it did not exceed the overwhelming media bias in favor of Clinton. However, that doesn't mean it wasn't a deciding factor. The Russians are quite smart. They understood the Electoral College system. They targeted voters in key swing states.
I said, "at most" it counterbalanced the mainstream media - i.e., whatever its extent, it did not exceed the overwhelming media bias in favor of Clinton. However, that doesn't mean it wasn't a deciding factor. The Russians are quite smart. They understood the Electoral College system. They targeted voters in key swing states.
I mean, no one but crazed Trump cultists deny that Putin used vast resources to try and elect Trump. Thousands of propagandists, mass advertising, fake rallies, fake organizations, 150 million views on Facebook alone.
Was Putin's interference enough to flip the election? We'll never know, but it's quite plausible, even likely. The election was decided based on a few thousand Rust Belt voters, and that's where the Russians spent the bulk of their resources.
Was Trump in a criminal conspiracy with Putin? I don't know, but that's Mueller's job. We'll know soon enough.
150 million views does not mean that 150 million read or were influenced it .
The real problem is that Russia is stepping on the toes of the US/Zionist controlled media machine, who believe they have the monopoly on spewing propaganda to the masses to get what they want. Russia back-dooring CNN/MSNBC/Faux News etc through Faceplace simply can't stand!
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.