Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 08:32:35 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Trump #7 - Kremlin's in the system

Started by Mister Six, February 18, 2018, 08:06:24 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Pdine

Quote from: phantom_power on February 19, 2018, 02:53:04 PM

See my Leicester comparison

It seems pretty clear that this was a very winnable election for the Dems and them losing was entirely of their own making. It also seems clear that they are using the Russia thing to try to paper over how much they  fucked up. That is not to say it isn't important in itself

I don't really see how they are 'using it'. The FBI started investigating independently of any political impetus and the House and Senate investigations were initiated by bi-partisan committees.

EOLAN

Quote from: Pdine on February 19, 2018, 02:46:06 PM
It's been useful/predictive in every election since 1861.

A bit disingenuous to say that it has been predictive for every election since 1861 as you are excluding:


  • Elections where there was a Republican occupying the presidency
  • Elections where the sitting Democratic president stood for re-election

So instead of a sample of around 40; you are working from a sample of six as a predictor. Going off my own knowledge so any mistakes I am happy to own up to.

1860 (I count this even though it seemed to be excluded from your timeline) Lincoln overcomes multiple Democrats in a classic case of vote-splitting with James Buchanan not standing for the Democrats.
1896: Grover Cleveland completed 2nd term and didn't stand. Stood himself after first term so doesn't count William McKinley overcomes William Jennings Bryan
1920: Warren G Harding wins after Woodrow Wilson steps down after 2 terms
1952: Dwight Eisenhower - having been courted by both main parties wins presidency back for Republican; following on from Twin Peaks' favourite sheriff who also found time to serve as president as a nipper: Harry S Truman.
1968: Hubert Humphrey, setting the tradition of Minnesotan representatives stumbling having come so far with wily Nixon taking over. Surprise announcement by Johnson that he wouldn't seek another term and the ongoing controversy with Vietnam led to a heated divisive Democrat race with the primary race seeing the murder of one of the leading candidates (though he probably still wouldn't have run the primary race).
2000: Gore marginally loses in Florida to lose electoral college after winning popular vote. Tried to distance himself from Bill Clinton who completed his two terms.

Pdine

Quote from: EOLAN on February 19, 2018, 03:52:17 PM
A bit disingenuous to say that it has been predictive for every election since 1861 as you are excluding:


  • Elections where there was a Republican occupying the presidency
  • Elections where the sitting Democratic president stood for re-election


Not really disingenuous, as I was saying that as a Democratic candidate, you wouldn't replace a living Democratic President if elections since 1861 were predictive. As such your first list isn't really relevant to what I was pointing out, I think. As for your second list, I'm not sure what it's supposed to be demonstrating?

Twed

Drawing from established statistical knowledge about the expected outcome of the election is irrelevant, and a particularly poor argument in the face of statistical analysis leading up to the actual events. Everybody was certain Clinton would win. They weren't all just ignoring some magic rule that said she couldn't. I don't see what point you're making with your very simplistic metric.

BlodwynPig

Quote from: Pdine on February 19, 2018, 02:31:46 PM
What the fuck are you talking about? I have few pro-US sentiments, and I'm not American. Go fuck yourself.

As you wish. *wanks to the stooge*

daf

Quote from: Pdine on February 19, 2018, 04:13:56 PM
as I was saying that as a Democratic candidate, you wouldn't replace a living Democratic President

With a . . .

a) dead Democratic President
b) dead Republican President
c) Cyborg

Jack Shaftoe

Trump's win hinged on 70K votes over three states, so just being able to swing the vote by 1% in the right place (and they knew where to target) could easily have made the difference.

Same with Brexit. Enough money at the right weak point (Aaron Banks' wife had already been suspected by MI5 of being Russian agent and no-one knows where he got the bulk of his money from) and you can move mountains.

EDIT: for clarity, Clinton could well have lost anyway, she was rubs. But Trump was helped by this, he knows it, and he's shitting it.

biggytitbo

Quote from: Pdine on February 19, 2018, 02:27:16 PM
I'm just going to let you read up on this.

Yeah whatever, I look forward to them been extradited.

Quote
The rate you cited

No, that was their estimated budget for all their activities in Russia and around the world, not the budget for their 'American trolling' campaign.

Quote
That's not the issue. The issue is running 1,000 separate ads daily on a limited number of fake Facebook pages.

You'll have to show your working I think because you appear to be making it up.

Quote
Again, actually read the indictment then get back to me. I stress it because it directly contradicts your argument.

Ironic you say this.

BlodwynPig

I think he's got us Biggy. Robocop is being brought out of retirement this moment to sort things out.

phantom_power

Quote from: Pdine on February 19, 2018, 03:11:39 PM
I don't really see how they are 'using it'. The FBI started investigating independently of any political impetus and the House and Senate investigations were initiated by bi-partisan committees.

Just because it was instigated by someone else doesn't mean they can't use the whole thing to their own ends, and by "they" I also mean their apologist and enablers, those who still think Clinton was robbed and is some great hope that will never be.

Again, not that the Russia thing isn't serious in itself. It is just convenient for the DNC to hide their many failings behind "we would have won it if not for them pesky ruskies". Let's see if they have learnt any lessons with the next round of elections

biggytitbo

This casts doubt on where Steele got his information from to start with - https://www.thenation.com/article/russiagate-or-intelgate/

QuoteWe are left, then, with a vital, ramifying question: How much of the "intelligence information" in Steele's dossier actually came from Russian insiders, if any? (This uncertainly alone should stop Fox News's Sean Hannity and others from declaring that the Kremlin used Steele—and Hillary Clinton—to pump its "propaganda and disinformation" into America. Such pro-Trump allegations, like those of Russiagate itself, only fuel the new Cold War, which risks becoming actual war any day, from Syria to Ukraine.)

And so, Cohen concludes, we are left with even more ramifying questions:

§ Was Russiagate produced by the primary leaders of the US intelligence community, not just the FBI? If so, it is the most perilous political scandal in modern American history, and the most detrimental to American democracy. And if so, it does indeed, as zealous promoters of Russiagate assert, make Watergate pale in significance.

QuoteIf Russiagate involved collusion among US intelligence agencies, as now seems likely, why was it undertaken? There are various possibilities. Out of loathing for Trump? Out of institutional opposition to his promise of better relations—"cooperation"—with Russia? Or out of personal ambition? Did Brennan, for example, aspire to remaining head of the CIA, or to a higher position, in a Hillary Clinton administration?

I'd say it was the first two, mainly the 2nd point. No doubt they (arguably rightfully) loathe trump, but the most important thing is the push for a new cold war, which must persist despite inconveniences like elections.

ajsmith2

#71
Quote from: BlodwynPig on February 19, 2018, 01:30:28 PM
*bottom lip trembles*

I'm not clever enough to fully understand this reply, though from the context I guess it's probably saying my post was silly or dumb in some way. If so, to prove there's no hard feelings, here's a cute porcine - related story from Sunday's papers you might enjoy (I know I did):


Pdine

Quote from: biggytitbo on February 19, 2018, 04:37:16 PMNo, that was their estimated budget for all their activities in Russia and around the world, not the budget for their 'American trolling' campaign.

You'll have to show your working I think because you appear to be making it up.

Your link cited $25-50 per ad. Take $37.50 as a median then. Taking - as you suggest - the entire operation including the extensive staff dedicated to broadcasting Putin propaganda back at Russians, then they'd need to place ~33,333 ads a month in their entire portfolio of feeds to cover $1.25m, or over 1,000 ads a day. I didn't spell this out as the numbers were all in the original post and it's fairly basic maths.

edit to add: Also compare the takings of the Macedonian project you linked to earlier. Anything strike you?

Pdine

Quote from: biggytitbo on February 19, 2018, 05:30:14 PM
This casts doubt on where Steele got his information from to start with - https://www.thenation.com/article/russiagate-or-intelgate/

Hahah based on the Nunes memo. [VicReeves]Very poor[/VicReeves]

Pdine

Quote from: Twed on February 19, 2018, 04:20:04 PM
Drawing from established statistical knowledge about the expected outcome of the election is irrelevant, and a particularly poor argument in the face of statistical analysis leading up to the actual events. Everybody was certain Clinton would win. They weren't all just ignoring some magic rule that said she couldn't. I don't see what point you're making with your very simplistic metric.

Clearly.

biggytitbo

Quote from: Pdine on February 19, 2018, 06:36:37 PM
Your link cited $25-50 per ad. Take $37.50 as a median then. Taking - as you suggest - the entire operation including the extensive staff dedicated to broadcasting Putin propaganda back at Russians, then they'd need to place ~33,333 ads a month in their entire portfolio of feeds to cover $1.25m, or over 1,000 ads a day. I didn't spell this out as the numbers were all in the original post and it's fairly basic maths.

edit to add: Also compare the takings of the Macedonian project you linked to earlier. Anything strike you?

The budget wasn't $1.25m for the US operation, it was $1.25m for all their various scams in Russia and around the world. It says that in the indictment itself, which you've read. It also says in the indictment it was a money making scheme, and the only real crime they identity is wire fraud, which was fraudulent paypal accounts they'd set up to collect their profits. If they weren't making a profit, why the fake paypal accounts?

Pdine

Quote from: biggytitbo on February 19, 2018, 06:58:32 PM
The budget wasn't $1.25m for the US operation, it was $1.25m for all their various scams in Russia and around the world. It says that in the indictment itself, which you've read.

Yes, I know. Read my post again. I'm saying that - leaving aside where they operated - they spent $1.25m a month at the height of operations. To break even with those outgoings you'd need to sell and place over 1,000 $25-50 ads a day. That's made harder if some of your money is spent on seemingly totally pointless (if you're just after ad sales) items like cages, Clinton impersonators and rally organisation. Your Macedonian example made the organisers ~$4,000 a month, if they are to be believed. Isn't it possible that some of that $1.25m spend was intended to have a propaganda effect, rather than simply generate ad revenue? If you say no, what makes you so sure?

biggytitbo

Quote from: Pdine on February 19, 2018, 07:03:29 PM
Yes, I know. Read my post again. I'm saying that - leaving aside where they operated - they spent $1.25m a month at the height of operations. To break even with those outgoings you'd need to sell and place over 1,000 $25-50 ads a day. That's made harder if some of your money is spent on seemingly totally pointless (if you're just after ad sales) items like cages, Clinton impersonators and rally organisation. Your Macedonian example made the organisers ~$4,000 a month, if they are to be believed. Isn't it possible that some of that $1.25m spend was intended to have a propaganda effect, rather than simply generate ad revenue? If you say no, what makes you so sure?

We don't know anything about their non US stuff so we don't know exactly what they were doing, what it cost or how effective it was. But even if we assumed all ads were run at US rates they could have been running hundreds of accounts, with the possibility of multiple ads run per account per day, so it's perfectly possible they were making a profit. But that it was money orientated is shown by the fact they were selling ads against the accounts at all, and collecting the profits through paypal accounts.

Pdine

Quote from: biggytitbo on February 19, 2018, 07:16:58 PM
We don't know anything about their non US stuff so we don't know exactly what they were doing, what it cost or how effective it was.

That's not really true - check the Wikipedia link (which summarises numerous Russian newspaper exposes) and the interview with an operative posted in the previous thread.

QuoteBut even if we assumed all ads were run at US rates they could have been running hundreds of accounts, with the possibility of multiple ads run per account per day, so it's perfectly possible they were making a profit. But that it was money orientated is shown by the fact they were selling ads against the accounts at all, and collecting the profits through paypal accounts.

The fact that they sold ads doesn't mean that it was primarily a money-making operation, of course. Why wouldn't you try to make some money back? The point is that - given what we know about how much they spent, what they spent it on, and the requirements of working there - it's pretty obvious that disinformation and propaganda were the chief intended products.

biggytitbo

Be logical

Q: If was an attempt to sow discord in America or influence their election, why would some random commercial operation in St Petersburg do this at great expense to themselves for no discernible reason?
A: They wouldn't, that makes no sense. If that was the case it'd be a Russian intellegence oepration using this company as a front

Q: Why would a Russian State operation, costing in government terms an absolute pittance of small change, need to make an equally, in government terms, pittance of money back?
A: They wouldn't obviously, especially in a way so transparent and clumsy that it easily leads back to them. A real state intelligence operation wouldn't draw attention to by taking money back, and even if they did they'd do it in a more sophisticated way that involved tax havens and no obvious money trails.

I know you're desperate to cling on to the fantasy of Russian collusion but it makes no sense to do something so risky in such a piffling, amateurish way, for such meagre gains, and that leaves an easy trail back to them, whereas it makes total sense for scam marketeers to do the same.

Pdine

Quote from: biggytitbo on February 19, 2018, 07:32:45 PM
Be logical

Q: If was an attempt to sow discord in America or influence their election, why would some random commercial operation in St Petersburg do this at great expense to themselves for no discernible reason?

A: They wouldn't, that makes no sense. If that was the case it'd be a Russian intellegence oepration using this company as a front

Why do you say that? The indictment names a restaurant tycoon  Yevgeny Viktorovich Prigozhin as the source of IRA's funds. Prigozhin has close ties to Putin and is named by Navalny's Anti-Corruption Foundation as a kleptocratic billionaire. Of course, that latter accusation is moot in that no one achieves that kind of wealth in Putin's Russia without official blessing and collaboration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yevgeny_Prigozhin
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/17/putins-chef-a-troll-farm-and-russias-plot-to-hijack-us-democracy

So your distinction here is false, I'd assert. It's not an either/or thing. Russian state aims are often pursued via stolen money spent by Putin-friendly plutocrats, and this operation fits that model nicely, if the indictment is to be believed.

Quote
Q: Why would a Russian State operation, costing in government terms an absolute pittance of small change, need to make an equally, in government terms, pittance of money back?
A: They wouldn't obviously, especially in a way so transparent and clumsy that it easily leads back to them. A real state intelligence operation wouldn't draw attention to by taking money back, and even if they did they'd do it in a more sophisticated way that involved tax havens and no obvious money trails.

We've already established, though, that total secrecy was not a requirement. The IRA had undertaken a number of operations for the state, targeting Ukraine and Russian opposition, since 2013, and it had always been semi-public via Russian press exposes. It didn't affect its effectiveness in any way, and indeed as Buelligan argued earlier, in a way its semi-public status was part of its function. It sent the message that Russia had information weaponry and an agile, flexible approach to ramping it up when needed via local casual labour. If you haven't read it yet I really recommend that WaPo interview with a former employee. As for making some money back, why not? If you have built these resources for disinformation, it seems wasteful to not monetise them inasfar as you can easily.

QuoteI know you're desperate to cling on to the fantasy of Russian collusion but it makes no sense to do something so risky in such a piffling, amateurish way, for such meagre gains, and that leaves an easy trail back to them, whereas it makes total sense for scam marketeers to do the same.

I think for you to make that argument stand up you'd need to show that such operations would suffer from being semi-public, and the evidence seems to refute that. You'd also need to explain the insanely high running costs with a numerically credible account of how they could possibly make it back, which you haven't really been able to do thus far.

I also think it's worth untangling a disinformation campaign from 'collusion'. The indictment goes a long way to demonstrating the former, but not the latter. By trying to show that the IRA was a credible disinformation operation, I'm not arguing that it demonstrates collusion. Of course, other evidence, like Stephanopoulos' testimony, does make something of that case, but I'd be grateful if you'd be accurate about what I'm saying.

biggytitbo

Get your story straight, in your version the whole thing is run by this rich bloke who, like everyone in Russia we don't like has 'close ties' to Putin, presumably to imply it was some plot between them (despite the fact no Russian state actor is mentioned anywhere in the indictment), why would he then attempt to monetize it to such meagre reward (you claim they can't possibly make a profit), but at maximum risk of it been traced back to him because his trolls amateurishly used paypal accounts to collect their profits? Why attempt to monetize it all, when he's rich, and he's backed by the Russian state who at this scale effectively have limitless funds?

It seems slightly more likely he'd simply made an investment in a company to do internet marketing and keyboard monkeying, and they'd hit on this particular scam as a potentially easy and scalable way of making money.

The late Robert Parry often pointed out the sheer, uncharacteristic foolishness and naivety it would have required from Putin to ever be involved in such a harebrained scheme with absolutely no guarantee of success. The Russiagate obsessives like to paint him as a Machiavellian genius, when he'd have to be more Brian Butterfield if their silly claims were true.

biggytitbo

Fun aside, forget his numerous victims and #metoo etc, it was Russian trolls that made Al Franken a sex pest! In what is now known as the 'George Takei defense' -

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/02/white-nationalists-twitter-bots-fueled-war-al-franken-democrats-fell/

QuoteThe Alliance for Securing Democracy explained that Russia Intelligence operations then ensured "Al Franken" was trending by Nov. 17 using a group of 600 fake accounts

Is there anything these guys can't do?

Twed

A deeply shitty claim for a self-declared "progressive" media outlet to make, robbing the women of the #MeToo movement of their agency.

QuoteNo coordinated network of bots exists on the left that is funded by Democratic donors
That's because they just call them Super PACs or "strategic research" or "watchdogs". Also that's not "the left". Horrible worms.

biggytitbo

Also worth pointing out the 'alliance for securing democracy', often cited in mainstream media, are themselves anti-Russia neocon trolls hungry for war war war - https://theintercept.com/2017/07/17/with-new-d-c-policy-group-dems-continue-to-rehabilitate-and-unify-with-bush-era-neocons/


And kind of ironic that newsweek themselves have been caught out doing similar kind of online ad scams as the IRA - https://www.thedailybeast.com/ibtimes-and-newsweek-publisher-reportedly-engaged-in-ad-fraud

manticore

Could someone who's had the diligence to do more research than me explain how the story has gone from 'Russians planted lots of stories to attack Clinton' to 'Russians planted lots of contradictory and bizarre stories advocating different sides' to cause division and discord in American/Western Civilisation' back to 'Russians planted lots of stories to attack Clinton' again?

Because my impression was that they promoted various stories of all sorts from all directions (though with a definite bias against Clinton), which is exactly what RT (the station that nobody actually watches) seems to do. A lame attempt at shit-stirring basically.

What proportion of it was actually anti-Clinton?

gabrielconroy

I'm not sure how easy that is to say, given that there are lots of people fuelling the 'story'.

I think the more concrete points of interest are the various meetings, connections and contacts with Russian actors by various members of the Trump campaign and transition team at times when they oughtn't have been doing so.

I don't know how much it points to collusion, given how thick he seems to be, but Donald Jr.'s emails between Wikileaks offering dirt on Clinton, and his meetings with Veselnitskaya, along with Flynn and Kushner where they discussed 'adoptions' are deeply suspect. Whether or not you think these are especially bad is a different question, but they most definitely happened.

Then there are all sorts of circumstantial oddities, like Trump's continued refusal to implement the sanctions almost unanimously passed by Congress, which is a clear abuse of power that doesn't seem to have caused the concern it should have done.

And stuff like Trump's calling on Russia to release emails about Clinton during the campaign - which later were leaked as a result of the Cozy Bear hack on the DNC, which Dutch intelligence apparently watched happen in real time.

And even aside from all the Russia goings-on, his brazen flouting of the emoluments clause is absurd. And he has stupid hair.

manticore

No, Trump isn't increasing the proxy war with Russia in Syria, he isn't increasing US military build up on Russia's borders, he hasn't sent arms to the Ukranian government (something that Obama held off from doing) thus creating a proxy war with Russia on its border, no, RT and Sputnik haven't been forced to register as foreign agents. No, we aren't closer to nuclear war with Russia than we have been for decades.

Donald Trump is a Russian agent! Jill Stein is a Russian agent! Blodwyn Pig is a Russian agent! There may not be evidence but there are circumstantial oddities after all.

bgmnts

An anagram of Trump's full name is Russians in Dump Crimea.

Just sayin'

Hundhoon

im certain Russia spent money trying to tilt the election in Donald Trumps favour, the government must have sent many undercover FSB operatives to survey the environment. but it would not have been enough to sway the election in Trumps favour. just dont think spamming online news articles comment sections is enough to win over 62 million people who voted for Trump, nobody watches Russia Today in America either.

its blowing my mind how unhinged the American Media and many people i previously respected are reacting to this, its absolutely insane i have never seen America act this mental its acctually quite scary watching the behemoth meltdown in such a way. I think America will come out looking worse because of this episode. Its a deeply flawed democracy.
Nothing will come out of this, trust will be eroded in the US.