AT FIRST that is what they did, but as Mueller says in that very section that strategy shifted to support Trump and disparage Clinton.
What does this sentence mean, Flash? The campaign evolved from a generalized program designed in 2014 and 2015 to undermine the US. electoral system, to a targeted operation that by early 2016 favored candidate Drumpf and disparaged candidate Clinton.
So literally right there, Mueller tells you the strategy shifted once Trump entered the race.
Do words not mean what they mean?
When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist
How do you know that? You don't know that. You can't presume to know the mindset of those voters, and it's arrogant to assume you do. Lazy arrogance, actually. So, so lazy.
And why did they say "Hillaryt did this" or "Hillary did that"? Because of the propaganda that was effective at making them think that.
None of these people came to the conclusion Clinton "did this" or "did that" on their own; just like you, they were convinced of this by propagandists.
You're saying propaganda does and doesn't work. That's your argument. Not very coherent.
When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist
Mueller's report makes it pretty clear that the social media trolling done by Conservative Russians in the states Manafort shared polling data with Kilmnik were effective.
You would know that if you read the report...but you refuse to read the report. Why?
From the news. What propaganda are you talking about?Where do you think you got all the negative information about him?
So propaganda DOES influence people. You just got done screeching that it didn't in PA, MI and WI. So you don't seem to know your own position here.Propaganda is information aimed to influence, it can be true.
You're all over the place.
You say propaganda influences people, generally speaking, but then you say the propaganda disseminated in PA, WI, and MI didn't. So that makes no sense.
You seem to be arguing that propaganda is only effective when it suits the lazy, shitty argument you make on this thread.
When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist
WRONG!
We actually do know this, and it's detailed in Mueller's report.
You also have the capacity to know if you shared or even liked Russian propaganda on Facebook because they added a tool to let you know if you did.
So Flash, why are you so lazy? That's the thing about you that is the absolute fuckin' worst; your laziness.
You lazily make "both side"s arguments because your mind is so limited, it cannot process that there is no balance. To you, it's impossible to conceive that something is worse than something else because making everything equal is the only way your small mind can wrap itself around it. That's a function of your poor genetics.
When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist
WTF are you talking about?
Many older people DO use social media.
In 2016, 64% of people age 50-64 used social media.
So you do this thing, Flash, where you subsitute your own shitty judgment for the base standard, and you're so fucking lazy about it, that you don't even bother to research it before you say it.
To say "many older people don't use social media" when 64% of those in the 5-64 demo did in 2016 means you're making shit up off the top of your head because you're a fucking liar, fraud, and intellectual lightweight.
You do that kind of thing all the time. You hurriedly and sloppily say something general, based on your poor judgment, that always turns out to be completely fucking wrong.
Why is that?
When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist
Trump won because Russians hacked our election systems, and bombarded idiots in key states (the same states Manafort was sharing polling data with Kilmnik) with social media propaganda.
All they needed to do was flip 100,000 votes, and they did.
You said propaganda works "on a small percentage of voters".
Is 100,000 voters across three states a small percentage? Be honest.
When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist
What propaganda?
So what propaganda are you talking about?Propaganda is information aimed to influence, it can be true.
Was there a secret child cannibal sex ring out of a DC pizza shop?
So you're post-hoc stretching the definition of "propaganda" now to retcon your argument.If you didn't see negative information about both Drumpf and Clinton you must have not been paying much attention to the campaign.
Clinton didn't undertake an effort to disseminate Russian propaganda across social media in key states that Manafort was sharing polling data with Kilmnik. Trump did.
When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist
Yes, you fucking liar!
I even said; the NC-09 election fraud committed by Republicans was missing.
Why was it missing?
Why didn't Heritage bother to include it?
It's a pretty big deal since it's resulting in a Special Election next month and directly impacts a Congressional seat; your source didn't include it, why?
When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist
First of all, by your own admission this isn't comprehensive.
So if it's not comprehensive, what does that make it? BIASED!
Secondly, nothing in there shows that the fraud was committed by Democrats...just that it was committed by people. You're making the assumption that they're Democrats and you're making that assumption on purely racist grounds. Not one thing in that biased INCOMPLETE link says the fraud was committed by the Democratic Party. Yet, you're attributing it to Democrats, why? Because that's the only way you can maintain the false "both sides" argument you need to make so that the rest of your life makes sense.
I did challenge the fact, and you ignored it! You dismissed it by moving the goalposts and saying that your source was not comprehensive.Smearing the source is always the response when you can't challenge the facts.
Just curious, how are you going about attributing any of that voter fraud to Democrats since the source doesn't mention party affiliation? By applying racism to the names of the people.
So on top of being lazy, you're also a racist.
When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist
Your "source" doesn't denote party affiliation, so you are using your own poor judgment, shit instincts, and both sides compulsion to distribute the fraud evenly between the parties because that's the only way your mind can process this.
The fact that your "source" left off the NC-09 fraud that is resulting in a special election shows its biased, and shows you're so fucking lazy you don't even bother to vet your sources.
When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist
1. You're not a rational person.
2. It's not rational to attribute fraud to both sides equally because you're too lazy to check your source.
3. You "both sides" because deep down, you know you lack good judgment, so the way you go about life is to lazily equate everything so you don't have to confront any of it. You can just throw your hands up and say "both sides are the same" to posture.
When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist
Bookmarks