Democrats and the evil Russian Facebook Ads

| May 8, 2018

According to the Huffington Post, Democrats are still blubbering over Russian-financed ads that were on Facebook two years ago;

Lawmakers released redacted copies of some of the advertisements last year that focused on immigration, same-sex marriage and gun control. Facebook later said more than 126 million people potentially saw the ads purchased by the Russians.

Schiff’s efforts come just a weeks after Republicans on the Intelligence Committee released a 250-page report that said they had uncovered no evidence of collusion between Russia and President Donald Trump’s election campaign.

I know Democrats are trying to convince themselves that it wasn’t their policies or their candidates that lost them the 2016 elections, but this is just more useless bullshit that wastes our time and our money.

Popsugar has the graphics from some of the ads;

California Senator Dianne Feinstein said during the hearings, “What we’re talking about is a cataclysmic change. What we’re talking about is the beginning of cyberwarfare. What we’re talking about is a major foreign power with sophistication and ability to involve themselves in a presidential election and sow conflict and discontent all over this country. We are not going to go away, gentlemen. And this is a very big deal.”

From where we stand, with nearly 126 million Americans having seen these downright inflammatory posts and not having thought anything of it — well, we really couldn’t agree more. And perhaps being able to put some tangible imagery behind the amorphous idea of Russian meddling will make us all think twice before we scroll past an image such as the ones ahead on any of our social feeds ever again.

So what? Seriously. There are Americans who never logged on to Facebook and still voted against Democrats. How do you dummies explain that?

I’m going to guess that Russian-sponsored ads had no effect on the election, compared to effect that Hillary Clinton had on the loss. She was a terrible choice as a candidate and she had a terrible platform. Period.

This is just so much mental masturbation.

Category: Politics

Comments (114)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. LC says:

    I’ll definitely agree with you that Clinton’s campaign was the biggest reason why she lost, but that hardly means the Russian influence didn’t have an effect. And it’s entirely possible that without the Russian efforts, Clinton’s terrible campaign would’ve still resulted in her win, no thanks to her.

    Put differently, if you think Soros-funded ads and ‘liberal-owned’ media can influence people,… why can’t other media? Would conservatives see it as a problem if China conducted a massive information-ops campaign in favor of a Democrat?

    I’m glad Clinton isn’t President. That doesn’t mean I’m happy with President Trump or oblivious to the effect of targeted information ops on a population.

    • Jonn Lilyea says:

      I guess you didn’t look at the ads we’re talking about “A vote for Hillary is a vote for Satan”. How many of us fell for that?

      • Mason says:

        Frankly, I thought it was spot on. 😉

        • desert says:

          yeh mee too…I mean she did attend witches coven meetings once a month! makes her satans tool to me…or phool!

      • ChipNASA says:

        NAILED IT!!!!
        😀 😀 😀

      • LC says:

        I think you underestimate the gullibility of some people. Look how many people believe (still) in the Obama birth certificate conspiracy theory? Or who think he was a ‘secret’ Muslim?

        I personally know people who do believe the Democrats are ‘agents of Satan’ because of their stance on abortion, so an ad linking Clinton and Satan? Yeah, some would totally buy into that and it would further motivate them. No question. Ads don’t have to effect a large part of the population to be effective.

        • Ex-PH2 says:

          So you do not accept the simple fact that a lot of us ignored the ads or never saw them? And we voted based on our OWN decision-making brain power?
          Is that it, LC?
          Geezo Pete, if you had bothered to spend five minutes watching that bimbo run her mouth in a restaurant in Iowa at the very start of her campaign, you might be able to understand why NOBODY in flyover country wanted her in the White House.

          Did that EVER occur to you?

          If there is even ONE gullible person posting silly stuff here, you’re it.

          • Mason says:

            Spot on, Ex. Most people I know pay absolutely no attention to campaign ads. In fact, I’d wager most people hate all campaign ads. They’re either attack ads or so over the top sappy that they drip.

          • LC says:

            Of course I accept that a lot of you ignored or didn’t see them. But some did.

            And as I’ve said numerous times, I fully believe Clinton herself is the primary reason why she lost the election. I can’t stand her, and understand why others feel similarly. My point here was that some people -not all, just some!- were influenced by the ads. To say otherwise is to argue against years and years of marketing research, psychology, politics and basic common sense.

            Do you accept the simple fact that some people were influenced by the ads? Because that’s the only unassailable fact I’m defending. From there, we can then argue whether it changed the electoral outcome, but that’s more speculative.

            • Mason says:

              I’d be willing to stipulate that there would be gullible, easily swayed people that saw those ads and may have been influenced. I’d say it’s a minuscule number.

              I guess I’m not outraged that foreign governments try to influence US elections. With how much “aid” money we give out, it’s inevitable. We’re a cash cow. I’m not outraged because;
              A – We’ve interfered in countless domestic squabbles in other countries. Usually not for altruistic reasons.
              B – These attempts at influencing us are joking bad.
              C – Our political system is tied to money. Big business, big labor, the PACS and Super PACS, et. al.

              If their attempt here was to sow discontent in the voting system, then the Democrats have only
              been complicit. Did anyone who lived through the 2000 election not understand how our system works (or fails to work)?

        • 11B-Mailclerk says:

          In the words of sportscasters ….

          “C’mon man!”

          What are you owing to do? Register all facebook posters and prohibit any “mean” political posts?

          It never ceases to amaze me how little it takes to trigger the inner jackboot of the Left.

          “Oh noes! Some foreign meanie exercised free speech! They -trolled- us! They disagreed with us and some gullible americans might believe it!”

          Because if your attitude is “somehting has to be done to stop this”, you are really saying “we need some Authority here to censor political speech we do not like”.

          And the left of course is -legendary- for their fair, apolitical, and restrained hand when they decide who may and may not speak and when.

          No thanks. We will just have to learn to live with folks saying things we dont like. Mainly by ignoring or refuting them.

          Or, are you proposing “someone” stop online meanies from using speech for “interfering” in our elections? Because I know darn well my own speech will be what gets hushed under such a Reich, oops …. regime.

          No.

          • 11B-Mailclerk says:

            And while the topic is on the table, where the frack is your righteous indignation at -Soros- interfering in our elections? Hmmmmm?

            • LC says:

              Uh, it’s there. I dislike all of that influence, but I find covert foreign influence especially troublesome, as should anyone with half a brain.

              I’ll also add that my ‘righteous indignation’ applies not just to Soros, whom I know the Right often holds up as a boogeyman in all sorts of issues, but also the Koch brothers, whom I believe spend far more than Soros does.

              • OWB says:

                Your delusions are showing again.

              • 11B-Mailclerk says:

                So who -does- have a -right- to speak, and who does -not-?

                Who decides?

                You clearly missed the whole “first amendment” thing.

                Yup. That means that folks will kibbutz our elections. That also means that rich folks get to kibbutz richly. And foreign folks, and assembled groups of folks, and stupid ones.

                No. You do not get to stop this.

                No.

          • Ex-PH2 says:

            Mean political posts???

            Facebook/Zuckerberg The King of All Social Media has already announced that he will NOT ALLOW any political views that do not support liberals. (That’s a summary, NOT exact words.)

            Well, it’s his toy. He can sulk in a corner with it if he wants to, but he is mandating censorship of anything he disagrees with. He’s the one who started FB.

            Glad I never fell for that nonsense.

            • rgr769 says:

              I’ll bet a dollar to a doughnut that the overwhelming majority of voters who voted for Trump never saw any of those supposed Ruskie ads. I look at this site daily, and I completely ignore all the ads. My wife looks at Fakebook all the time. She never saw any of these ads. Since Fakebook is nationwide, if not world-wide in English, I can’t believe these ads were specific to certain states. Anyone here ever see one during the election? Buehler?

            • Ex-PH2 says:

              I never saw any ads of any kind during that campaign season. I didn’t even get campaign mail from local politicians, although if they had been stupid enough to send it to me, I throw it into the trash bin right next to the mailbox without reading it.

              • Fyrfighter says:

                Don’t do that Ex.. take all the political propaganda crap, and stuff it into the pre-paid envelopes that come with credit card offers and such, then mail it back, as heavy as possible, on their dime…

                • Ex-PH2 says:

                  I don’t get credit card offers, but that does offer a good idea: send all of them to AARP in their prepaid envelopes!

                  And funeral parlors! They send me stuff all the time! So do local ‘health centers’ that have my name from a Medicare list – they can get some, too.

                  Problem: the mail campaign ads are usually 11 x 6 on heavy card stock, which means they won’t fit into a standard return envelope.

                  Simplest thing to do is stick them into the newspapers, which go to recycling, after making a note of the candidates’ names so as to know who to NOT vote for.

          • LC says:

            I didn’t suggest any particular action, did I? I’m arguing one simple truth – that the ads had an influence. I’m not even arguing the size of that yet, just that the effect exists. Do you think the ads had an effect? If so, are you okay with foreign actors buying influence through covert ad campaigns in elections?

            I also don’t think I’ve called for any sort of censorship – if anything, I’d rather people just understand the depth of targeted information campaigns so they can be skeptical of what they here. Note that in none of this do I care one whit about which side of the political aisle the ops come from. I’ve just seen enough people believe crazy shit without any proof, and seen plenty be influenced by their emotions rather than good sense, that I think some understanding of these issues are necessary to the well-being of the country. What’s bad about wanting people to understand the source of the information they receive?

            • NHSparky says:

              Hillary’s campaign spent $1 BILLION to get elected.

              And yet we’re supposed to believe $350k in Facebook ads swayed 140 million voters.

              Gorcha.

              • LC says:

                I think that’s a considerable stretch – all I’m saying is that saying $350K in ads had zero effect is laughable. Companies wouldn’t spend money on ads if they didn’t get a return on investment from it, right?

                And as I said above, Clinton’s terrible campaign is the primary reason why she lost. But I still think when some foreign entity covertly tries to influence a US election, the response should be more than a yawn by the average American.

              • Ex-PH2 says:

                Sometimes, LC, you are so damned gullible, you have to be in the 2nd grade.

                Unless YOU have personally taken a survey of people who report that they watched those ads – any of them – and were influenced by them to vote one way or the other, you have nothing to back up what you are saying.

                N-O-T-H-I-N-G.

                You are rattling on as if you know everything about it, which you don’t, under the mistaken assumption that people watch TV like they did in the 1960s. This is completely NOT true.

                Viewing habits have changed radically just in the last 5 years, never mind since 2002. With social media evolving into what it is now and will be in the near future, people can and do choose to do what they have always done – IGNORE ADVERTISING AND GO WITH THEIR FEELINGS.

                It is a false assumption on your part that media of all types have a strong influence when it is widely known and accepted that the internet is more influential that the campaign cards I get in my mailbox and the ads and posters all over the place prior to any election, never mind ads on television. Networks are scrambling to change with the times and not keeping pace. If that were not so, CNN and MSNBC would NOT be losing their audience. How hard is that for you to understand?

                Sure, I get nostalgic for the Budweiser ads, and I don’t drink beer. But it doesn’t mean I’m going BUY Budweiser, does it?

                No, I would rather herd cats.

            • 11B-Mailclerk says:

              And yet, all your concern, in all the myriad ads and megabucks, is a trivial sum spent by an alleged foreign conspiracy that somehow tipped the election.

              The Russians spent -just- enough, to leave a fingerprint that could be used by the left to deny the reality of the greatest Donk train-wreck candidate in two centuries.

              And here you are, ignoring a billion plus spent by that vengence-harpy -disaster- of a candidate, to say “see! Russian tampering!”

              Thus you are furthering the Russian goal of sowing doubt and chaos in our house.

              You idiot.

              • LC says:

                Ha! Yes, suggesting that we should all be against covert foreign influence in our elections is, magically, somehow aiding the Russians in their goal of sowing chaos.

                I’ve already said Clinton was a terrible candidate and lost because she was a terrible choice and ran a terrible campaign. That’s not mutually exclusive with exposing covert action against our elections. That you can’t see that is mystifying.

                • 11B-Mailclerk says:

                  The election was fair and square, as much as any of ours are.

                  Peaceful transition of power means suck it up buttercup. We sat through eight years of zer0 peacefully. Now you get to sit through 4-8 of Trump and we do it all over again.

                  Stop harping on “foreign meddling”. You are the one helping the Russians ” meddle”, by aiding their efforts to delegitimize and to sow chaos.

                  You.

                  Or, continue to be mocked for a tool and a fool.

            • Hondo says:

              The effect – if any – of Russia’s Facebook ads (many of which appear to have run after the election) was negligible. And I’d guess any such effect was dwarfed by vote fraud in Clintoon’s favor in the NYC, Chicago, and LA metro areas alone.

              Here’s why I say that.

              First: Facebook estimates that “up to 126 million people” may have seen those ads. “Seen” does not equal “read”, which in turn does not equal “influenced”. I’m guessing the total number of folks influenced by those adds was somewhere between 0 and maybe 12,500. My guess is maybe 1 in about 100 who “might have seen” the ads actually read them, and only about 1 in 100 who read them were influenced by them. That gives an upper limit of voters “influenced” by the ads of ( 126,000,000 x 0.01 x 0.01 ) = 12,500 – nationwide.

              Second: the spending on those ads represented <0.04% of the spending of the Clintoon campaign. It is absurd to contend that those anti-Clintoon Facebook ads were so influential that they had any significant effect given that paltry level of investment.

              Third: there is credible substantial evidence of widespread attempts at voter fraud in major metro areas – which generally if not exclusively favors the Democratic Party. Case in point: prior to the election, there were published accounts of 50+ persons being sent voter registration appeals/materials at one 2BR apartment in the LA metro area. None of those individuals lived at that address.

              Finally: continued harping on the issue does nothing but keep it alive, and engender calls to "do something to prevent similar occurrences in the future". Bluntly, any affect on votes cast in the 2016 Presidential election this Russian ad campaign may have had falls in the "morons being morons" category. Short of including a basic intelligence test as a prerequisite for voting (and good luck with getting a Constitutional Amendment or SCOTUS decision allowing that), there's no way to prevent imbeciles on either side of the political fence from voting. This is clearly a case where any proposed "solution" would be far worse than the problem it purports to solve.

              And don’t get me started about Mueller’s continued fishing expedition he calls an “investigation”.

              Bottom line: Clintoon lost because she was a lousy candidate, a nasty individual, and untrustworthy as hell; voters in states constituting a majority of electoral votes simply didn't want her as President. Any foreign ad campaigns in her favor or opposing her had insignificant effect. Get over it.

              And voter fraud may be the only reason she achieved an apparent popular vote plurality, since as I recall three metro areas with a known history of questionable voting practices (LA, NYC, Chicago) gave her that plurality nationwide. I personally don’t think it’s likely – but I can’t dismiss the possibility that voter fraud engineered in Clintoon’s favor gave her that popular vote plurality, either.

        • rgr1480 says:

          Yeah, and I know some Protestants who think Catholics are not Christian.

          And there are the Flat-Earthers.

          The world still is full of “teh stoopit.”

          So, some people think Barry is a closet-Muslim and born in Africa … or some really believe Hillery is an agent of Satan; but, not enough to sway even a mayoral election, much less a presendital election.

          • LC says:

            Whether it was enough to sway an election is a secondary issue at this point – my main point was that there is an effect from these sorts of information ops.

            I don’t think seeing a McDonald’s advertisement on TV is going to make me want to go out and eat there,… and frankly I can’t imagine it influencing anyone I know. At the same time, I can’t imagine why McDonald’s would spend a staggering 1.4 billion freaking dollars on advertising if it wasn’t effective in some way.

            If you agree there’s an effect from psyops / media / marketing /etc, then we can argue how much that effect matters.

            • NHSparky says:

              But yet advertising is somehow responsible for manipulating sheeple to make decisions for them.

              Holy shit! An advertisement actually worked?

            • Mason says:

              I think these attempts at swaying American voters were probably about as effective as Tokyo Rose, Hanoi Hannah, or North Koreas Potemkin village.

              Sure, maybe someone, somewhere was influenced, but did they really get much return on investment?

              • LC says:

                I don’t know – that’s an open question. I’d have a lot more respect for anyone on the Republican side who argues that the effect of Russian influence was small compared to the many missteps of the Clinton campaign in the elections. That’s a reasonable, pretty clear position, in my opinion. But instead, people are so afraid to admit that psyops work so they double down that there was zero effect, which is stupid.

                • 11B-Mailclerk says:

                  Your “wow! Woe!” Begs the question of what to do about it.

                  Nothing.

                  We are -not- giving the -government- any more power to silence challenging opinions.

                  No.

        • rgr769 says:

          About a $100K worth of Fakebook ads, about half of them posted after the election, and you think they swung the election against Das Hildabeast. You D-rats show daily why you will always drink the progtard propaganda Kool-aid spewed by the hate Trump MSM.

        • Hondo says:

          I think you underestimate the gullibility of some people.

          Like those who were convinced that that a vote for Trump was a vote to establish a Fascist regime? Please, LC – the world is full of morons of both political persuasions.

          More troubling is your unstated implication that “something needs to be done” here – ostensibly to protect the public from such “bad” social media posts. At the Federal level, that would seem to require gutting the First Amendment’s guarantees of free speech.

          Are you really OK with advocating that? Think hard before answering – because that’s exactly what you (and everyone else who keeps harping on the issue) is implicitly advocating by bringing it up.

          • LC says:

            If there was any implication that ‘something needs to be done’, it certainly wasn’t one asking for Federal intervention. It’s more of a desire for people to understand where their information comes from, and to be skeptical of things that are overly incendiary or outlandish without some proof. And, I’ll add, that ‘unstated implication’ wasn’t stated because it wasn’t intended – my main issue, now, is people ignoring the basic principles of marketing and psychology that underpin information ops and marketing alike.

            That absolutely applies equally to people who thought a vote for President Trump was a vote for establishing a fascist regime. It also applies to people who believed the Clinton campaign was sending coded messages about pedophilia at pizza restaurants.

            Can we agree that an informed electorate, that knows where the information they get is coming from is better for the future of the country?

            • Mason says:

              I agree, people should know where they’re getting the info. The modern media however traffics in conjecture, rumor, and anonymous sources. They prove time and again they cannot be trusted to get basic facts they report as true straight.

              They also don’t just report, they give commentary.

              The other problem is with places like Facebook now wanting to police “fake news”. So now they are censoring what they think is fake, or what the SPLC thinks is wrong, or what Snopes says is fake (both being partisan organizations). I’d rather we just let everyone talk, no matter how crazy it seems. The nuts only gain a platform when people are told they can’t do something. Then it becomes a challenge.

            • 11B-Mailclerk says:

              And we are thus, to your point, better off knowing that you appear to be a willing participant in a Russian op to give the Left a bullshit excuse to say tainted/illegitimate/tipped.

              Thus sowing discord in our camp. A classic Russian Sun-Tzu type op.

              And you are going to keep getting outed as a participant every time you bang their drum.

              • LC says:

                Have I ever said the election was illegitimate? (Hint: The answer is no.) I’m actually OK with President Trump – I dislike him, but I dislike Clinton just as much, albeit in different ways.

                Having an issue with covert foreign influence is not the same as calling the election illegitimate. It’s not a difficult concept – you’ll get it eventually.

                • 11B-Mailclerk says:

                  I already get “free speech”

                  You apparently don’t.

                  so -what- if they spoke? Any nonsense was drowned out in the noise. Any factual points can be debated.

                  Oooooo ! “Covert” ! Lile a whole lot of party spending!

                  Oops! -lots- of political activity is “covert”. Lots of anonymous signage, posts, ” committee to obscure origins…”

                  Nature of politics. Stop helping foreigners imagine they are running our chaos. Stop helping them sow dysfunctional chaos to foreign ends.

                  If six figures of junk ads, mostly post balloting, was capable of any significant influence, every campaign would -hire- them.

                  All of them.

                  It was an op to leave an arguable fingerprint for post election bickering. They bet the farm on Clinton (Thus millions in donations). The items that trouble you were a hedge-bet.

                  An op to get folks bitching about the outcome.

                • Yef says:

                  LC, why do you dislike Prez Trump?
                  Can you explain with specific points?

        • NHSparky says:

          And who started that bullshit pray tell?

        • desert says:

          The clown obozo wasn’t a “closet” muslim, he didn’t try to hide it, even had a muslim ring on instead of a wedding ring, muslim countries all said the a.h. was a muslim, and I SAW THE REAL birth certificate from Mumbasa Kenya, with the hospital, the number and the Doctors name….so keep sticking your head in the sand, ….or take your pills!

          • 11B-Mailclerk says:

            How would you know what a real birth certificate from that location would look? How woudl you have ever been able to look at such a thing yourself?

            One would expect if such a thing existed to be widely published by media willing to criticize zer0, like Fox News.

            Links? (Serious ones, not clickbait freakazoid sites.)

            Has anyone credible validated such a thing?

            Personally, I think he -was- born here. If there was any scam, it was bullshitting a foreign origin story in college for political cred, and/or financial assistance, and/or getting laid.

            Which rather neatly explains why the college won’t release records, because one of those three options would rise to felony level.

            Oopsie.

          • Casey says:

            Time to lose the tinfoil. Obama’s birth was announced in not one, but two different local Hawaii papers a day later.

        • Casey says:

          Given that the Hillary camp helped start the birther meme, that’s a pretty funny example.

      • Cowpill says:

        I agree whole heart!

        I don’t even have a facebook account

    • Fyrfighter says:

      The difference I see is a couple points LC.

      First, the amount of money involved. The Russians spent almost nothing, whereas Soros dumps tens of millions into gun control, and anything else he feels can destroy this nation.

      Second, is the collusion angle. The Russians did it to shake confidence in the system (a goal which the left is ensuring is a success), not to benefit a particular candidate, and not with any coordination / collusion with a candidate / party. The flip side is that the left actively coordinates / colludes with Soros in all of his schemes to destroy our democracy.

      • 11B-Mailclerk says:

        Gee. Once again, the Left cooperating with Russia to undermine American institutions.

        It’s like groundhog day.

        • Fyrfighter says:

          Yeah, does seem to be a recurrent theme don’t it??? Kinda like all the noise they make about Senator McCarthy… mostly because the vast majority of his accusations were spot on, and all of them were on the left…

          • Casey says:

            Um, no. McCarthy never found a single Commie in government service. He was Hell on wheels with accusations, yes, but given the large number of “fellow traveler” organizations that existed before WW2 (when Stalin was waging a “we’re just folks” campaign in the West) and during, when the USSR was an ally killing millions of Nazis, it was a target-rich environment. Most of those fellow travelers were idealistic youngsters who didn’t know any better, like the kids who swallow the CAGW crap today. Clueless, yes. Traitors, no.

      • LC says:

        I dislike all of these things – but, as I said above, I find covert and foreign influence to be especially troubling. And those two can be separate – you can have covert domestic sources, but put ’em together and it’s even worse.

        I’ve made no statement saying that the Russian ads won President Trump the election. I don’t know that. And, again, if Clinton hadn’t run such a terrible campaign, there’s no question it would’ve even been possible for the Russian influence to have an effect.

        As for the Russian goal, the DNI said they Russians started it with a goal to shake confidence in the elections,… but when they saw there was a possibility of a Trump win, they rolled with it. That ‘not to benefit a particular candidate’ only applied to the early stages of the operation.

        Finally, as for Soros, I can quite honestly tell you I dislike his influence. I’m not sure I’d characterize it as trying to ‘destroy our democracy’, which I think is a bit of a stretch, but definitely he wields a lot of influence. I’m also against the even larger influence the Koch brothers wield, which last I saw dwarfed even Soros’s investment. If it’s fair to say the Left coordinates / colludes with Soros, is it fair to say the Right coordinates / colludes with the Koch brothers? Is any of that good?

        • Yef says:

          Dude, the Kock brothers were squarely against the Trumpminator.

          Try again.

        • Ex-PH2 says:

          Yef, you left out the Rockefeller brothers, who also spent their foundation moneys on the Clinton campaign.

    • NHSparky says:

      Okay, so how much influence did a fellating media that distorted and manipulated stories (or the lack thereof) have on the election?

      • Ex-PH2 says:

        Frankly, NHSParky, the ‘fellating media’ were so over the top in their attempts to crown the Queen Bitch that they ignored what was right under their noses: Trump’s appeal was to voters who had had enough of the liberal side of the political fence.

        There is a report somewhere that indicated a movement of moderate liberals (Democrat in name only) to the conservative side of the voting ballot. They did NOT want Clinton in the White House.

        If advertising had any effect, that may have been part of it – persuading people who might have voted Democrat to vote Republican instead.

    • Yef says:

      LC, what about the People’s Republic of Chicom donations to one Bill Clinton?
      Does that troubles you too?

  2. 2banana says:

    The democrats have ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, CNN, NYT, LAT, Hollywood, etc on their side in full propaganda mode 24/7.

    A few Facebook ads??? Really?

    • 11B-Mailclerk says:

      And yet with gazillion of Soros dollars, the Donks could not tip the election their way.

      Weird!

      It is like they had an unlikable unelectable candidate or something.

    • SFC D says:

      What’s that old saying, something about a forest and trees… LC is focused on a single tree, when there’s a whole section of forest that did more “collusion” than the Facebook ad campaign.

    • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

      I’m sure the majority of the D-rat owned and operated mess media’s minions still expect to wake up to a Hitlery presidency, OH the DELICIOUS SCHADENFREUDE!!

  3. Mason says:

    The problem I have with all this Russian conspiracy is what were they gaining by helping Trump? I can see them just wanting to throw a wrench in the general process and to sow doubt in the system. However, I can not for the life of me see why they’d want Trump?

    Trump campaigned from the start on a pro-America, nationalistic platform. Trump also campaigned on fighting ISIS and tossing the Iran “deal”, both were/are moneymakers for Russia.

    Meanwhile, Hillary is a globalist and populist and most importantly, a known quantity. Even if they didn’t like her, they knew how she worked. No surprises. Nobody knew how Trump was going to operate, he was (and still can be) a wild card.

    Russia had everything to gain by hurting Trump and helping Hillary. The more the Democrats make this their platform, which they’ve now spent almost 2 freaking years on, the more they come off as deranged conspiracy theorists. They sound like the birthers did with all this Russian boogeymanery.

  4. ChipNASA says:

    From the photo that’s not above but at the link for this thread,
    Shillary can jam that finger straight up her ass and spin on it.

  5. timactual says:

    For literally generations Democrats have been saying that anyone who claimed Russia/USSR was trying to influence US elections was a delusional right-wing dingbat. Now they say anyone who DENIES that Russia is trying to influence our elections is a delusional right-wing dingbat.

    • Fyrfighter says:

      There’s no such thing as hypocrisy for the left. They can say things like that, in direct opposition to each other, and it’s all perfectly acceptable… at least to their sycophantic followers it is..

      • Mason says:

        Perfect case in point playing itself out today. One former NY AG Eric Schneiderman. Hailed by the left, HRC, and the Womens March as a progressive feminist. All the while (allegedly) physically and emotionally torturing women.

        The good people still in the Democratic Party need to leave and start a new one. Cause everyone at the top of that organization repeatedly shows their true colors.

        • UpNorth says:

          There are still good people left in the dem party? If true, they’ve been drowned out by the assholes.

  6. RetiredDevilDoc8404 says:

    The Dummycraps and their moronic minions are discounting the number of people who simply voted AGAINST Cankles McPantsuit, because they either loathed her; were sick and tired of her and her voice; didn’t trust her or Counterfit Bill; or a combination of all of the above. I ignore the ads on Facebook, it took a heck of a lot of doing but the vast majority of my feed is from my dog group and the groups I admin (no politics allowed, you are allowed one slip after that bye-bye). I voted to keep that creature out of the White House, I fall under option 4, all of the above. Facebook ads be damned, I’m smarter than that.

    • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

      I remember some media outlets citing “Clinton Fatigue” as one reason why President Trump’s predecessor got the D-rat nomination in 2008.

  7. Ex-PH2 says:

    A – I don’t do social media for a good reason. Waste of time. Unless you’re running a business, what is the real need for it? If you’re too freaking lazy to write letters or talk on the phone, that’s your curse.
    2 – Conspiracy theories – didn’t the Democrats bring this on themselves, starting back in 2008?
    3 – Why in the blue-eyed world does anyone with any common sense think the GOPers would even vaguely consider colluding with the Russians to keep shrillary out of the White House? She was perfectly capable of doing that to herself, and that is EXACTLY WHAT SHE DID.

    Grow up. Some of us can still think for ourselves, you know. I don’t do social media. I can make up my mind for myself without the ad campaigns, thank you, and I did so. My brains still work despite my age and misperceived low level of internet sophistication.

    This is bullshit. All of it. BULLSHIT.

    • Casey says:

      FB can be a real boon in aiding communication with friends and those with common interests. For example, I’m a member of a couple of (scale) modeling groups and a couple of groups focused on local history. FB makes it easy to hook up online and share our common interest. Same thing with friends & family. I know one fellow who connected with his kids the first time in a couple of decades after he got on FB.

      True, FB can be abused, but so can every other online platform you care to mention. I pay no attention to FB “news” feeds.

  8. OWB says:

    Does DiFi really believe “… What we’re talking about is the beginning of cyberwarfare…” It just started? No, really??

    Wow. All those folks sitting at their computers for decades might argue with that assessment. But, hey – she probably thinks it sounds good for her to say it.

  9. Mason says:

    I’m less worried about Russian ads on Facebook than I am Facebook’s history of working for/with candidates on a particular side of the spectrum while silencing the other side. Facebook itself poses a bigger threat to democracy.

  10. Jeff LPH 3, 63-66 says:

    I’m not on facebook or care to be. How come I never hear anyone talking about soros ratting out his peeps to the Nazis during WW2 when he was around 12 years old.

    • Mason says:

      I saw him referred to as a “holocaust survivor” in an article recently. I think the neighbors probably heard me scream. He was a collaborator. Worse yet, he’s not the least bit remorseful about it. Something along the lines of “if I didn’t do it, someone else would have.”

    • Casey says:

      Bullshit. He was a 14-year old boy who accompanied his father on a couple of evaluation missions. That’s all.

      I have no use for the man, but you’re just repeating lies. Feel free to provide actual proof of these claims.

      …And here I thought it was the Democrats who specialized in character assassination…

  11. Roger in Republic says:

    One question. Why would the Russians campaign against Hillary? They had paid hundreds of millions in bribes to ensure that she was on their side when she was ‘inevitably’ elected. They owned her, lock stock and barrel. Uranium One was a lot more than a mining deal, it was a money laundering scheme to put Hillary under control of the Kremlin. Her greed and lust for power allowed them to purchase her continued acquiescence to any and all of their moves in the world. They wanted another Obama administration so they bought one, or so they thought. As for the million dollars spent on face book, I believe that was cover for their outright purchase of the Hillary Dog.

  12. The Other Whitey says:

    On election night, Hillary Clinton is said to have whined, “They were never going to let me be President.”

    Think about that for a second. *They* were never going to *let* me. First, who is “they?” It could either be the people of this country, for whom she transparently patronizes at best, and (more often) openly disdains. Do we somehow owe her something? Her tenure as SecState was a series of disasters. She was a shameless flipflopper in the Senate who reliably voted whichever way the wind was blowing. As First Lady, she kept herself busy making sure the world knew that her predatory husband’s victims were “bimbos”—this from the very same woman who would insist that every woman “has a right to be believed.” She has never done a goddamned thing that benefited me, my family, my friends, or anyone whose last name isn’t Clinton, so nobody owes her shit. Or could it be the Russians, who she favored with sweetheart deals while running the State Department and who have added quite a bit of money to her coffers via means both overt and covert.

    And what did she mean by “let me?” Does she seriously think that she is somehow entitled to the Presidency, as if this were the 15th Century and she was the latest of a European dynasty, who claimed to rule by Divine Right, i.e. that God had supposedly ordained her to rule the unwashed peasant masses? Or did she mean that all those bought-and-paid-for hookups and bro-deals she gave to Comrade Vlad in the Kremlin were supposed to come with the promise that he would help her back into the White House?

    No matter how you slice it, her comments indicate that she wasn’t interested in a constitutional election. One way or another, the Bitch of Benghazi seemed to think that her victory was a done deal without a single vote being cast, and that her defeat was due to the same machine she thought to manipulate turning against her for some mysterious reason. At best, she’s the most self-important cunt with delusions of entitlement in history. At worst, she was colluding with the Russians herself. These two are not mutually-exclusive, either.

    Hillary Clinton is the most corrupt politician in living memory, quite possibly the most corrupt in history. She makes Bill Tweed, a fellow democrat who unquestionably ruled New York City for decades, look like a rank amateur. She bragged about lying to her constituents, has a proven track record of serving no cause other than her own enrichment and empowerment, and possesses less charisma than a half-starved alligator. She lost because the country recognized her as a godawful candidate.

    • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

      It’s no secret that she waltzed onto the stage in 2008 and 2016 fully expecting to be coronated with her minions expecting the same, I still get a kick out of watching the Hillarrhoids going nuts on Election Night 2016, ooooh, sweet Schadenfreude!!!

    • Mason says:

      Bravo TOW. Very well put. *golf claps*

    • UpNorth says:

      Nicely done, TOW. Standing ovation.

    • Casey says:

      A lot of rationalizations with an easy answer: “they” were white males and the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy she’s been bitching about for the past 30 years.
      She was denied the presidency because she had a vagina, according to her own twisted logic.

      • NHSparky says:

        The reason she lost changes more often than she changes her Depends.

        The one constant? She’s never looked in the mirror for someone to blame.

  13. Sapper3307 says:

    Anybody seen Hilary with her new back brace? I guess eating babies/stem cells only gets you so fare.

  14. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    The Dems/Libs/Commies/Socialists just don’t get it. That’s good. It bodes well for future national elections.

  15. Perry Gaskill says:

    It seems to me it’s important to keep an eye on the ball with this stuff. First of all, HuffPo ranks close to zero on the objective scale. At this point, they’re making desperate attempts to keep the Robert Mueller investigation going because they “feel” Hillary got cheated, and President Trump needs to be punished for it whether he is responsible or not.

    Meanwhile, the real question in play should be whether or not the current administration colluded with the Russians to somehow illegally tank the Clinton campaign. Political hardball might be for meanies and poopie heads, but it’s not necessarily illegal. It might also be mentioned that Mueller has so far spent an estimated $15 million, and apparently uncovered zero evidence of collusion.

    Not that it matters. Over time, it’s become increasingly apparent that Mueller’s goal is no longer about his original mandate to find evidence of collusion. Now it’s about doing as much damage as possible to the Trump administration by bringing obstruction charges. Obstruction of justice, at least in this case, apparently being whenever Mueller isn’t told what he wants to hear.

    • 2/17 Air Cav says:

      Yeah, those questions he posited were a laugh riot. One after another sought information altogether unrelated to the express purpose of the probe. More than enough time and money has been spent on this silliness, with no paucity of people who–if they had a scintilla of evidence going to collusion–would have been more than happy to serve it up. The media are so disappointed.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      How is Mueller going to bring any kind of charges? He has no authority to do anything any more. He’s no longer the head of the FBI. Comey is sitting in that seat.

      Yeah, Mueller is in an attorney’s position. But he did everything possible to avoid going after any suspected terror groups since 2000.

      • Perry Gaskill says:

        Ex, my understanding is that as current Special Counsel, Mueller has the ability to subpoena and file charges. Even if he didn’t have an ability to charge President Trump directly, Mueller might, in theory, be able to cause articles of impeachment.

        Remember what happened to Nixon during Watergate. It wasn’t his direct involvement in the break-in that turned into the big problem. It was apparently the cover-up of evidence during the subsequent investigation by Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski.

        It seems to me somewhat obvious that a collective wet dream among Democrats now is to have history repeat itself. Never mind that it almost never does.

        • OWB says:

          A small nit – he can enable the bringing of charges of impeachment, not cause them. Only Congress can bring those charges against the prez. Otherwise, completely agree with your assessment.

          As special counsel, he can indeed charge any of the rest of us, apparently without regard to it’s relation to his investigation or even anything criminal.

          Yes, Watergate was nothing like this. Breaking into an office, anyone’s office, is illegal. Stealing stuff is illegal, doesn’t matter who does it and why. That was the basis for that investigation which led to the cover up. We have been told of no illegal act which started the current “Russia, Russia, Russia” mess.

        • Ex-PH2 says:

          And if there is any ‘Russia, Russia, Russia’ collusion at all, it most likely comes from the Democrat side of that fence.

          Right now, they’re grasping at paper straws.

  16. FatCircles0311 says:

    One has to have their head so far up their ass to believe Russia wanted Trump to win over corrupt Hillary “reset button” Clinton and her hubby Willy “Slick” Clinton being paid all that money to speak in Russia. If anyone pays attention and connects the dots the Clinton’s are the ones tied into Russian money, influence, and favors not the other way around like they are projecting on a non politician such as President Trump. The Russia narrative was simply brought up to keep people distracted from actually looking into the Clinton Crime Family and as a poor attempt at a coup against a sitting president because it was “her time”.

    That bitter, sad, corrupt, and delusional bitch is running low on time. Eventually somebody is going to get tired of her shit.

    • Perry Gaskill says:

      Another possible explanation is that Hillary and the Clinton Global Initiative were pals with the Russians but something happened to generate enmity. Like one of those situations where thieves start to squabble over money. We may never know the exact circumstances because neither side is willing to have the facts made public.

      If I had to pick, it would be related to the uranium deal, but that’s pure speculation. Whatever the case, it makes you wonder if the Russians started to consider themselves as being double-crossed by some Clinton deal gone sour.

  17. Green Thumb says:

    Waste of out time and money is an understatement.