Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
ExpandMyMind

Bots May Have Boosted Trump's Votes 3.23%

182 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Merc14
1 hour ago, skliss said:

Why does everyone seem to forget that there were bots pushing for both sides? 

You are correct, of course, and since the excuse machine never mentions "that 3.2%" it must mean that people on the right just aren't stupid enough to change their vote over a twitter post from a bot so those tweets/facebook posts are irrelevant.   At least that is the only explanation I can come up with but I'm willing to listen to the excuse machine's reasoning, or what passes for it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why not

I wonder how badly Hillary would have lost if 90% of the MSM and print papers were not on her side.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
45 minutes ago, Why not said:

I wonder how badly Hillary would have lost if 90% of the MSM and print papers were not on her side.

I mean people always say this, but she got literally nothing but negative press 24/7 for an entire month leading up to the election. 

If they were as biased as some people claim, then the 'liberal media' would just have done what Fox does: ignored the story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
2 hours ago, skliss said:

Why does everyone seem to forget that there were bots pushing for both sides? 

How many of Hillary's bots were paid for by a foreign government, do you reckon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
56 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

You are correct, of course, and since the excuse machine never mentions "that 3.2%" it must mean that people on the right just aren't stupid enough to change their vote over a twitter post from a bot so those tweets/facebook posts are irrelevant.   At least that is the only explanation I can come up with but I'm willing to listen to the excuse machine's reasoning, or what passes for it.

They didn't have to change their vote. All they had to do was be convinced not to vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
14 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

I mean people always say this, but she got literally nothing but negative press 24/7 for an entire month leading up to the election. 

If they were as biased as some people claim, then the 'liberal media' would just have done what Fox does: ignored the story.

How do you know what she got on US night new channels?

9 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

They didn't have to change their vote. All they had to do was be convinced not to vote.

I think fixing the primaries against Bernie Sanders convinced democrats to stay home.  I think breaking the law kept undecideds on their couches.   Also, BTW, she happened to get 2 million more votes than Trump so not that many staying home, no her problem was ignoring fly-over states and spending the money meant for thos states in CA and NY to pump up her popular vote so she would win both the electoral and popular votes giving he a referendum.  It was the height of arrogance and cost her dearly.

 

Edited by Merc14
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skliss
42 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

How many of Hillary's bots were paid for by a foreign government, do you reckon?

As many as Trumps were...the articles all said the Russian bots played both sides against each other.  The idea was to promote dissent. 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
17 minutes ago, skliss said:

....... The idea was to promote dissent. 

Oh no it wasn't !!!! 

:P 

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_Grey
5 minutes ago, skliss said:

As many as Trumps were...the articles all said the Russian bots played both sides against each other.  The idea was to promote dissent. 

So we are here to point the finger at Republicans for dirty election tactics but really we are here to go over the many ways the Democratic party cheats in every election, including their own.

Bernie got the last laugh after his supporters watched his campaign go down in flames. When they discovered Hillary was caught holding the gas can they pushed that info out in to the public real quick. I doubt any one will forget that during the next election even if the news cycle pretends to. They cooked their own goose simply by being too corrupt and it eventually caught up with them. They can forget the moderate vote in 2020 but when your party depends on corruption to win, does it really matter?

In the same way they accuse the NRA of being in bed with the Republican party, check out the scale of donations coming from PP to the DNC:

Planned Parenthood DNC Donations

You gotta love how they swindled an organization that receives Government funds in to moving that money right back to a political party (over $4 million in donations during 2016). The Repubs are not doubt cheating somehow but they can only stand in the shadow of what the Democrat party's corruption. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
1 hour ago, Merc14 said:

How do you know what she got on US night new channels?

Multiple organisations have analysed the data.

1 hour ago, Merc14 said:

think fixing the primaries against Bernie Sanders convinced democrats to stay home

How exactly were they fixed? As far as I'm aware, there is no evidence to suggest that this was the case. There have been claims, but nothing even resembling proof has ever surfaced.

1 hour ago, Merc14 said:

Also, BTW, she happened to get 2 million more votes than Trump so not that many staying home, no her problem was ignoring fly-over states and spending the money meant for thos states in CA and NY to pump up her popular vote so she would win both the electoral and popular votes giving he a referendum.  It was the height of arrogance and cost her dearly

I personally think it was a combination of all of these things, with a bit of Russian meddling sprinkled on top.

Do you think the Russians would have pumped millions into this op if they didn't think it would have an effect? They obviously thought it was worth the effort.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
38 minutes ago, skliss said:

As many as Trumps were...the articles all said the Russian bots played both sides against each other.  The idea was to promote dissent. 

You're referring to the Facebook bots and no, the articles didn't. There were a tiny percentage of Facebook ads that "supported" Hillary in an attempt to organise violent opposing rallies. The overwhelming majority of their stuff was negative towards Hillary and supportive towards Trump. This was all irrefutably confirmed in the recent indictments.

Just today, once again, Trump-appointed Pompeo had to admit that Russia worked to get Hillary elected. The claim that you just made has been debunked since basically the moment someone claimed it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle

Anyone swayed that easily shouldn't be allowed to vote.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
23 minutes ago, Dark_Grey said:

the same way they accuse the NRA of being in bed with the Republican party, check out the scale of donations coming from PP to the DNC:

Well, to be fair, the Republican philosophy is inherently supportive of no gun control. The NRA wouldn't really need to buy off Republicans, since their base would vote them out if they weren't supportive.

Thinking about it logically, Dems is where the money would have to be spent, since they are the ones on the fence or against having less gun control.

Pro life lobbies see a similar funding towards Dems.

You don't buy the votes of people who are already planning on giving you their vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle
8 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Well, to be fair, the Republican philosophy is inherently supportive of no gun control. The NRA wouldn't really need to buy off Republicans, since their base would vote them out if they weren't supportive.

Thinking about it logically, Dems is where the money would have to be spent, since they are the ones on the fence or against having less gun control.

Pro life lobbies see a similar funding towards Dems.

You don't buy the votes of people who are already planning on giving you their vote.

No...Republicans think the laws we already have should be enforced. New ones are not needed.

If you think Democrats are all anti-guns you don't know many Democrats.

Edited by Michelle
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
8 minutes ago, Michelle said:

No...Republicans think the laws we already have should be enforced. New ones are not needed.

If you think Democrats are all anti-guns you don't know many Democrats.

You miss the point I was making. More Dems are for gun control, therefore it only makes sense that more money would be spent trying to gain their support.

I didn't say they were all anti-guns. I specifically said some were 'on the fence' to try to make it clear that they are not. I might not have conveyed this point strongly enough, but that is what I meant.

Edited by ExpandMyMind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormal Panther
15 hours ago, Vlad the Mighty said:

Yes, exactly. Considering how much supporters of the Dear Leader-to-Be (Hillary) hated the Orange Leader-to-Be and anyone who expressed any thought that he was anything less than a slightly tubbier, orange Satan , I find it very very hard to believe that anyone could have been undecided about which one to go for right from the start, let alone that their decision could have been so delicately balanced that an ad on Facebook (and have we ever actually been shown any of these supposed 'ads', so we can see what they actually were?) might have swayed them into making the fatal decision. 

I saw a few of the ads. They were akin to kindergarten insults (Clinton *or* Trump are poopy heads), and they were just drops in the ocean of American ads that were seen by many more people. We have better propaganda on this forum. People also "forgot" to mention that these amateurish Russians went after both sides.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CrimsonKing

@ExpandMyMind

Just a question EMM...

Why the literal obsession with ANYTHING Trump?...what skin do you have in the game?...Do you just enjoy trolling American Trump supporters?...Are there no jobs or women or anything else to do in Scotland?

It seems since this time last year i could log onto UM at 1am or 1pm and you can be found "discussing" anything Trump...that isn't a good sign for ones personal health!

I'm thinking we may need to start a thread to "Find EMM a woman" :lol:

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
4 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Multiple organisations have analysed the data.

How exactly were they fixed? As far as I'm aware, there is no evidence to suggest that this was the case. There have been claims, but nothing even resembling proof has ever surfaced..

You know what EMM, I'll let this inane and truly embarrassing post stand as is because it proves, far better than anything I could post,  just how absolutely ignorant you are of what really happened here in the states.  If I had asked you to do this you couldn't have done better.  :tu:

9 minutes ago, CrimsonKing said:

@ExpandMyMind

Just a question EMM...

Why the literal obsession with ANYTHING Trump?...what skin do you have in the game?...Do you just enjoy trolling American Trump supporters?...Are there no jobs or women or anything else to do in Scotland?

It seems since this time last year i could log onto UM at 1am or 1pm and you can be found "discussing" anything Trump...that isn't a good sign for ones personal health!

I'm thinking we may need to start a thread to "Find EMM a woman" :lol:

I was starting to think he was really here in the states based on his total obsession with the subject (ninjadude 2) but then he posted the above drivel and I dropped that thought.

 

Edited by Merc14
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skliss
4 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

You're referring to the Facebook bots and no, the articles didn't. There were a tiny percentage of Facebook ads that "supported" Hillary in an attempt to organise violent opposing rallies. The overwhelming majority of their stuff was negative towards Hillary and supportive towards Trump. This was all irrefutably confirmed in the recent indictments.

Just today, once again, Trump-appointed Pompeo had to admit that Russia worked to get Hillary elected. The claim that you just made has been debunked since basically the moment someone claimed it.

Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. And many of the ads were topical, not strictly Trump or Hillarry.

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2018/02/20/russian-bots-sow-social-upheaval-across-us-using-facebook-twitter-experts-say.html

Russian bots aren't pro-Republican or pro-Democrat: they're simply anti-American.

That's the conclusion many are reaching in the wake of the indictments recently handed out by Special Counsel Robert Mueller against 13 Russian nationals and three Russian entities who allegedly enacted a sophisticated plot to wage “information warfare” against the United States.

Marat Mindiyarov, a former commenter at the Internet Research Agency, says the organization's Facebook department hired people with excellent English skills to sway U.S. public opinion through an elaborate social media campaign.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/14/russia-us-politics-social-media-facebook

“The broader Russian strategy is pretty clearly about destabilizing the country by focusing on and amplifying existing divisions, rather than supporting any one political party,” said Jonathon Morgan, a former state department adviser on digital responses to terrorism whose company, New Knowledge, analyzes the manipulation of public discourse.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CrimsonKing
4 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

You know what EMM, I'll let this inane and truly embarrassing post stand as is because it proves, far better than anything I could post,  just how absolutely ignorant you are of what really happened here in the states.  If I had asked you to do this you couldn't have done better.  :tu:

I was starting to think he was really here in the states based on his total obsession with the subject (ninjadude 2) but then he posted the above drivel and I dropped that thought.

 

It's kinda fascinating to watch an obsessed mind at work...it's very similair to a crazy b**** who used to obsess about and stalked me lol

Very unnerving,but also sad to a point you kinda feel sorry for them hahaha

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
4 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

You're referring to the Facebook bots and no, the articles didn't. There were a tiny percentage of Facebook ads that "supported" Hillary in an attempt to organise violent opposing rallies. The overwhelming majority of their stuff was negative towards Hillary and supportive towards Trump. This was all irrefutably confirmed in the recent indictments.

Just today, once again, Trump-appointed Pompeo had to admit that Russia worked to get Hillary elected. The claim that you just made has been debunked since basically the moment someone claimed it.

Yet congress dragged Jeff Zuckerberg in to testify and not whatever geek started twitter.  Why if it had effect?

4 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Well, to be fair, the Republican philosophy is inherently supportive of no gun control. The NRA wouldn't really need to buy off Republicans, since their base would vote them out if they weren't supportive.

There is plenty of gun control in the states.  You are lying here or maybe just clueless on this as well.

Quote

Thinking about it logically, Dems is where the money would have to be spent, since they are the ones on the fence or against having less gun control.

Pro life lobbies see a similar funding towards Dems.

You don't buy the votes of people who are already planning on giving you their vote.

My above question answered, it is the latter, thanks.

Edited by Merc14
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
2 hours ago, CrimsonKing said:

Why the literal obsession with ANYTHING Trump?...what skin do you have in the game?...Do you just enjoy trolling American Trump supporters?.

This forum is plagued by misinformed conservatives who ascribe to the US' own special brand of extremist right wing politics. They support Trump blindly no matter what he does.

This started as 'there was no Russian contact'. It is now indisputable that there was - over 70 verified interactions. Then it was 'but, no collusion'. It is now indisputable that there was, not only with Russia, it seems, but also with Israel and Saudi Arabia. Now it is 'collusion isn't a crime'. After which, when it is shown that in committing the act of collusion there were indeed crimes committed, it'll be 'who cares, Hillary did worstest, U1, Benghazi', etc. It's embarrassing.

It has also been in the past 'no crimes were committed'. And now we've had his supporters (who will cheer if and when Trump pardons these criminals) in this thread saying 'flynn and Manafort’s crimes don't matter because they aren't directly connected' and ' don't care what other crimes Trump might have committed, I only care if he the Russia meddling type of criminal'.

It's a disgrace, obviously, but incredibly fascinating to watch being played out.

I wouldn't say it's an obsession. A hobby, more like. Things I've posted most about in this forum: Israel/Palestine, and UK and US foreign policy. What these and Trump have in common is that the arguments of those I debate with are so easily exposed with simply the documented historical record, that I find it astounding that people can be so ignorant of facts and reality. It's basically like someone who debates mainly with Bible thumpers. All the same signs are there. 

It also happens to be the only interesting and controversial topic in world news at the moment, which makes it an obvious choice for debates.

2 hours ago, CrimsonKing said:

Are there no jobs or women or anything else to do in Scotland?

Aye, mate, okay then. Says the guy who's been a member for nearly half the time I have yet has almost as many posts. But I'm the one with too much time on my hands?

2 hours ago, CrimsonKing said:

seems since this time last year i could log onto UM at 1am or 1pm and you can be found "discussing" anything Trump.

Sometimes I can't sleep. Like now, I woke at 2am and can't get back to sleep. Not much else to do at this time of night. And again, see my earlier points. I don't post nearly as often as you think I do, or as often as you.

I should also add that you guys elected an objectively disgusting human being and are supporting him no matter how low he gets. That in itself makes exposing his actions not only interesting, but important.

Edited by ExpandMyMind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

Its funny. No matter who becomes president, there will always be complaint threads. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
4 hours ago, Paranormal Panther said:

I saw a few of the ads. They were akin to kindergarten insults (Clinton *or* Trump are poopy heads), 

But that's exactly the way Trump acted in debates. He attacked his opponents on a personal level and some people, including all of his base, loved it. 

It was ingenious really, considering he had no clue what he was talking about when it came to any of the subjects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
7 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

This forum is plagued by misinformed conservatives who ascribe to the US' own special brand of extremist right wing politics. They support Trump blindly no matter what he does.

This started as 'there was no Russian contact'. It is now indisputable that there was - over 70 verified interactions. Then it was 'but, no collusion'. It is now indisputable that there was, not only with Russia, it seems, but also with Israel and Saudi Arabia. Now it is 'collusion isn't a crime'. After which, when it is shown that in committing the act of collusion there were indeed crimes committed, it'll be 'who cares, Hillary did worstest, U1, Benghazi', etc. It's embarrassing.

It has also been in the past 'no crimes were committed'. And now we've had his supporters (who will cheer if and when Trump pardons these criminals) in this thread saying 'flynn and Manafort’s crimes don't matter because they aren't directly connected' and ' don't care what other crimes Trump might have committed, I only care if he the Russia meddling type of criminal'.

It's a disgrace, obviously, but incredibly fascinating to watch being played out.

I wouldn't say it's an obsession. A hobby, more like. Things I've posted most about in this forum: Israel/Palestine, and UK and US foreign policy. What these and Trump have in common is that the arguments of those I debate with are so easily exposed with simply the documented historical record, that I find it astounding that people can be so ignorant of facts and reality. It's basically like someone who debates mainly with Bible thumpers. All the same signs are there. 

It also happens to be the only interesting and controversial topic in world news at the moment, which makes it an obvious choice for debates.

Aye, mate, okay then. Says the guy who's been a member for nearly half the time I have yet has almost as many posts. But I'm the one with too much time on my hands?

Sometimes I can't sleep. Like now, I woke at 2am and can't get back to sleep. Not much else to do at this time of night. And again, see my earlier points. I don't post nearly as often as you think I do, or as often as you.

I should also add that you guys elected an objectively disgusting human being and are supporting him no matter how low he gets. That in itself makes exposing his actions not only interesting, but important.

LOL.  Man, you are outdoing yourself tonight.  Seeing as it is 0330 in Scotland I believe the aforementioned obsession is confirmed.  The complete ignorance accusation is confirmed, as well.  Maybe you are seeing the whole thing collapse and turn on the accusers?  Well it is, and this is just the beginning, think drips out of the dam face turning into gushing torrents that are soon to be floods.  Yeah it is going to get much worse, enjoy.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.