The BIG LIE

[BillStime]

 

[BillsFanNC]

6 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

 

When Time magazine can come right out in the open and lay out the framework of how the 2020 election was rigged....and nothing happens, then you know we are circling the drain....

 

But hey, we saved our democracy!

 

 

 

Quote

Their work touched every aspect of the election. They got states to change voting systems and laws

 

In many cases not via state legislatures.  Unconstitutional. 

 

Quote

and helped secure hundreds of millions in public and private funding. They fended off voter-suppression lawsuits, recruited armies of poll workers and got millions of people to vote by mail for the first time.

 

Voting by mail.  BOTH parties have said for decades is most susceptible to FRAUD....magically overnight turns into granting us the most secure election in US History.

 

 

We saved our democracy!

 

The Big Lie indeed...

 

Quote

They successfully pressured social media companies to take a harder line against disinformation and used data-driven strategies to fight viral smears. They executed national public-awareness campaigns that helped Americans understand how the vote count would unfold over days or weeks, preventing Trump’s conspiracy theories and false claims of victory from getting more traction. 

 

Oh they did, did they? Pressured them how? Because we now know that the FBI was doing just fine censoring on their own over at TwitterFBI headquarters. 

 

And the good useful idiot fascists eat it up.

 

[BillStime]

15 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

When Time magazine can come right out in the open and lay out the framework of how the 2020 election was rigged....and nothing happens, then you know we are circling the drain....

 

But hey, we saved our democracy!

 

 

 

 

In many cases not via state legislatures.  Unconstitutional. 

 

 

Voting by mail.  BOTH parties have said for decades is most susceptible to FRAUD....magically overnight turns into granting us the most secure election in US History.

 

 

We saved our democracy!

 

The Big Lie indeed...

 

 

Oh they did, did they? Pressured them how? Because we now know that the FBI was doing just fine censoring on their own over at TwitterFBI headquarters. 

 

And the good useful idiot fascists eat it up.

 

👆🤣The simp is so deranged he is conversing with himself - desperately seeking vindication and a scapegoat for Trumps landslide 786 days since the election.

 

DR will never accept the reality that Trump lost - he even admitted it - and DR is so pathetic and programmed he doesn’t know what to do with himself.

 

[Tommy Callahan]

remember when the left said citizens united would be the end of democracy? And then it ended up creating mega funded PACS and charities that actually harvest, transport and deliver ballots.  Now the same voices say thats now kosher and true democracy.

 

 

Edited December 29, 2022 by Chris farley

[Doc]

1 hour ago, Chris farley said:

remember when the left said citizens united would be the end of democracy? And then it ended up creating mega funded PACS and charities that actually harvest, transport and deliver ballots.  Now the same voices say thats now kosher and true democracy.

 

Everything they're against is a "threat to democracy" or "racist."  It's projection.

[BillStime]

It was always a lie

 

 

[BillStime]

Will they ever find their scapegoat?

 

 

[B-Man]

 

The Washington Post Makes a Big Admission About 'Russian Interference' in the 2016 Election

 

Now, The Washington Post is finally admitting it was all nonsense. Citing a new study, the Post reports that there was no appreciable impact made by Russian “trolls” operating on Twitter during the 2016 election.

 

Russian influence operations on Twitter in the 2016 presidential election reached relatively few users, most of whom were highly partisan Republicans, and the Russian accounts had no measurable impact in changing minds or influencing voter behavior, according to a study out this morning.

 

The study, which the New York University Center for Social Media and Politics helmed, explores the limits of what Russian disinformation and misinformation was able to achieve on one major social media platform in the 2016 elections.

 

“My personal sense coming out of this is that this got way overhyped,” Josh Tucker, one of the report’s authors who is also the co-director of the New York University center, told me about the meaningfulness of the Russian tweets.

 

“Now we’re looking back at data and we can see how concentrated this was in one small portion of the population, and how the fact that people who were being exposed to these were really, really likely to vote for Trump,” Tucker said. “And then we have this data to show we can’t find any relationship between being exposed to these tweets and people’s change in attitudes.”

 

This was common sense at the time, but apparently, our betters in the national press possess none of that. People tend to follow and interact with like-minded people on social media platforms. The exception is in dealing with large accounts with a public profile. So a person on Twitter almost certainly won’t follow or give the time of day to a random, low-follower troll account (i.e. one run by Russia), but they will follow Joe Biden, not to accept influence from him, but to counter his opinions.

 

Besides, even if you assume widespread distribution of Russian propaganda (the study finds that wasn’t the case), essentially no users, and surely not enough people to swing an election, are influenced by social media to the point that they’d change their vote from Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump. That was always a ridiculous assertion. 

 

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2023/01/09/the-washington-post-makes-a-big-admission-about-russian-interference-in-the-2016-election-n685773

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/01/09/russian-trolls-twitter-had-little-influence-2016-voters/

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-35576-9

[B-Man]

 

[BillStime]

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

 

The Washington Post Makes a Big Admission About 'Russian Interference' in the 2016 Election

 

Now, The Washington Post is finally admitting it was all nonsense. Citing a new study, the Post reports that there was no appreciable impact made by Russian “trolls” operating on Twitter during the 2016 election.

 

Russian influence operations on Twitter in the 2016 presidential election reached relatively few users, most of whom were highly partisan Republicans, and the Russian accounts had no measurable impact in changing minds or influencing voter behavior, according to a study out this morning.

 

The study, which the New York University Center for Social Media and Politics helmed, explores the limits of what Russian disinformation and misinformation was able to achieve on one major social media platform in the 2016 elections.

 

“My personal sense coming out of this is that this got way overhyped,” Josh Tucker, one of the report’s authors who is also the co-director of the New York University center, told me about the meaningfulness of the Russian tweets.

 

“Now we’re looking back at data and we can see how concentrated this was in one small portion of the population, and how the fact that people who were being exposed to these were really, really likely to vote for Trump,” Tucker said. “And then we have this data to show we can’t find any relationship between being exposed to these tweets and people’s change in attitudes.”

 

This was common sense at the time, but apparently, our betters in the national press possess none of that. People tend to follow and interact with like-minded people on social media platforms. The exception is in dealing with large accounts with a public profile. So a person on Twitter almost certainly won’t follow or give the time of day to a random, low-follower troll account (i.e. one run by Russia), but they will follow Joe Biden, not to accept influence from him, but to counter his opinions.

 

Besides, even if you assume widespread distribution of Russian propaganda (the study finds that wasn’t the case), essentially no users, and surely not enough people to swing an election, are influenced by social media to the point that they’d change their vote from Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump. That was always a ridiculous assertion. 

 

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2023/01/09/the-washington-post-makes-a-big-admission-about-russian-interference-in-the-2016-election-n685773

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/01/09/russian-trolls-twitter-had-little-influence-2016-voters/

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-35576-9

 

ON TWITTER... now do Facebook.

 

[Westside]

1 minute ago, BillStime said:

 

ON TWITTER... now do Facebook.

 

Now do biden!!!

[B-Man]

2 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

ON TWITTER... now do Facebook.

 

 

There were links to three different news articles.

 

and the twitter dodge is the best you can deflect with.

 

So weak.

 

 

 

[BillStime]

2 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

There were links to three different news articles.

 

and the twitter dodge is the best you can deflect with.

 

So weak.

 

 

 

 

NOW DO FACEBOOK... they provided an OPINION on FACEBOOK; not scientific research - lmao

 

C'mon simp - go back to DR's Twitter and share more from Glenn Greenwald.

 

You can do it...

 

lmaol

 

 

 

 

[cle23]

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

 

 

There were links to three different news articles.

 

and the twitter dodge is the best you can deflect with.

 

So weak.

 

 

 

 

Your own article says that there was no impact made by the Russian accounts on Twitter.  Not that there wasn't Russian interference, but that the Russian troll accounts on Twitter did not impact the elections.  

 

From your own article:

 

"Citing a new study, the Post reports that there was no appreciable impact made by Russian “trolls” operating on Twitter during the 2016 election."

 

The "trolls operating on Twitter" had no impact.  I am not arguing that there was a bunch of Russian interference because I haven't seen enough evidence one way or the other, but your post is really misleading too.

[Tiberius]

Let's get this on! 

 

Quote

He is guilty 

 

[B-Man]

1 hour ago, cle23 said:

 

Your own article says that there was no impact made by the Russian accounts on Twitter.  Not that there wasn't Russian interference, but that the Russian troll accounts on Twitter did not impact the elections.  

 

From your own article:

 

"Citing a new study, the Post reports that there was no appreciable impact made by Russian “trolls” operating on Twitter during the 2016 election."

 

The "trolls operating on Twitter" had no impact.  I am not arguing that there was a bunch of Russian interference because I haven't seen enough evidence one way or the other, but your post is really misleading too.

Your assumptions are quite telling 

 

I am well aware of what “my own” article says. NO ONE on the right says that the Russians didn’t try to interfere in the 2016 election, in fact it was our stand that they have for decades 

 

Today the Washington Post admitted that they had no influence on the outcome. Surely you have read the almost daily posts from the usual suspects here that Russia stole the election from Hillary because Trump was a Putin stooge ?

 

That nonsense needs to be laughed at as often as possible. 
 

 

 

.

[cle23]

4 minutes ago, B-Man said:

Your assumptions are quite telling 

 

I am well aware of what “my own” article says. NO ONE on the right says that the Russians didn’t try to interfere in the 2016 election, in fact it was our stand that they have for decades 

 

Today the Washington Post admitted that they had no influence on the outcome. Surely you have read the almost daily posts from the usual suspects here that Russia stole the election from Hillary because Trump was a Putin stooge ?

 

That nonsense needs to be laughed at as often as possible. 
 

 

 

.

 

It says NOWHERE that the Russians had no impact entirely.  It says that the Russian troll accounts on TWITTER had no impact.  Those are 2 different things entirely. 

 

You are stating they had no impact at all.  The articles you posted says the Twitter accounts had no impact on the election.  Twitter is obviously not the only avenue to take in this situation.  So either you didn't read/understand fully what it said, or you are trying to mislead people.

[Doc]

2 hours ago, B-Man said:

Your assumptions are quite telling 

 

I am well aware of what “my own” article says. NO ONE on the right says that the Russians didn’t try to interfere in the 2016 election, in fact it was our stand that they have for decades 

 

Today the Washington Post admitted that they had no influence on the outcome. Surely you have read the almost daily posts from the usual suspects here that Russia stole the election from Hillary because Trump was a Putin stooge ?

 

That nonsense needs to be laughed at as often as possible.

 

They try and conflate "interference" with "collusion."  It sadly works on many.

[cle23]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

They try and conflate "interference" with "collusion."  It sadly works on many.

 

Go ahead. Please show me where I said anything remotely close to that.  

[BillStime]

4 minutes ago, cle23 said:

 

Go ahead. Please show me where I said anything remotely close to that.  

There is a reason why their “study” focused on Twitter and not Facebook.

 

The people that the Russians, Trump, Jared and Cambridge Analytics targeted was on Facebook.

 

Notice the simps didn’t want to even touch the Cambridge Analytic data breach.