3 ms·

r/politics isn't a great example: it's always been left-leaning, and from what I saw at the time, efforts appeared to be focused on motivating the Republican ba

by ruytlm 9y ago

r/politics isn't a great example: it's always been left-leaning, and from what I saw at the time, efforts appeared to be focused on motivating the Republican base to vote for Trump, and to drive Clinton voters to apathy or complacency. Neither of these would be achieved by trying to convince Clinton's fervent supporters on r/politics. Plus, it's a bit of an equivocation to suggest that today's top posts can be evidence that an influence campaign a year ago didn't work - the campaign was a year ago, not today.

xster 9y ago
I used to read r/politics multiple times a day before it went south right around the time of the Democrat's California primary when the DNC nomination was sealed (on a day when no voters voted and the nomination was determined by poll calls to anonymous super delegates mind you) and the money started flowing https://www.fec.gov/data/disbursements/?two_year_transaction_period=2016&disbursement_purpose_categories=other&data_type=processed&committee_id=C00578997&min_date=03%2F01%2F2016&max_date=09%2F30%2F2016 https://www.fec.gov/data/disbursements/?two_year_transaction... (the FEC site is kinda crap so you'll have to fidget a lot with it). It's anecdotal but I don't think there are any general tone changes from today to since ~June last year. There's a distinct shift in the tone of r/politics. There's a pre-DNC nomination / pre-CTR, pro-Jill Stein, pro-Gary Johnson, pro-Bernie Sanders, anti-Hillary, no-body-cares-about-any-Republicans-because-they're-irrelevant, Democrats-still-nominally-should-represent-working-labor, generally pro grassroots anti hegemonic aristocracy sentiment. A single dimensional left-right axis does huge disservice to clear political discourse but I guess you can say Reddit used to still be representative of the general coastal progressive crowd and it's left-leaning. That is, economically more left-socialistic than a center-right Obama, socially more progressive than a left-leaning Obama, very right-conservative than a very left-interventionist Obama foreign policy, very left-high-social-mobility vs a right-establishment Obama's balance of power. Then there's a hard shift to a pro-Hillary/establishment or you're a sexist/racist/bigot/redneck/Russian spy/religious zealot/white/rural/non college educated strawman dichotomy. I definitely wouldn't say r/politics is left-leaning. See how far you'll get if you want to talk about leftist topics like DAPL opposition, Yemen bombing opposition, Keith Ellison support, Tulsi Gabbard support, single payer support, military budget increase opposition etc. > efforts appeared to be focused on motivating the Republican base to vote for Trump, and to drive Clinton voters to apathy or complacency. Neither of these would be achieved by trying to convince Clinton's fervent supporters on r/politics. Sounds like you're referring to something other than r/politics. What are you referring to?
- shostack 9y ago
  Please keep in mind that a large part of the election interference from Russia focused on dividing the left. While there was obviously some of that already happening, a big part of the efforts did in fact focus on trying to split the vote of the Left and push people to Bernie/Stein/etc. The efforts don't have to have been purely pro-Trump to have been effective.
  - xster 9y ago
    Assume I temporarily freeze all other thoughts and fully accept that there was such a thing as 'election interference from Russia focused on dividing the left', that would be them tossing out their one in a lifetime chance to get a massive foot-gun against their interest instead. More than any high level official, Clinton has a sparkling track record of financial pliability towards Russian interest. A 0.5 million speech for Bill Clinton to a Russian bank was pretty much all it took for 20% of US uranium assets. With insiders like Tony Podesta, a Clinton presidency is like a Russian wet dream. Even Clinton campaign's internal self assessment of their own candidate's relative strengths and weaknesses highlighted her being pretty much a Russian agent as being one of her top vulnerabilities as a candidate. Clinton has her share of hawkish tendencies but only to countries that are principled and didn't bribe her. Unlike the Republicans that are the original neocons and empire builders, Clinton wasn't ideological. Weapons, chemicals, anything was for everyone, Algeria, Egypt, Al-Nusra, Al-Qaeda, anything was for grabs for cheap. Another Republican would have been far more damaging for the Russians whereas a Clinton presidency would have been an extremely rare opportunity.
    - shostack 9y ago
      You only partially quoted me. I said a "large part of their interference," not all of it as your quote implies. It has been confirmed by the intelligence community that a general theme of the interference was that they wanted to ruin Hillary specifically. I suggest you get up to speed on the official findings that have been declassified and released.[1] I also suggest you read up on the Uranium One situation[2] as what you are portraying is very different from what the facts say, and follow a debunked narrative. In fact, in his Wednesday testimony this week, AG Sessions indicated it did not currently merit a special prosecutor due to lack of evidence.[3] If you'd like to continue this debate and making claims, I request that you back them up with credible sources. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/the-intelligence-community-report-on-russian-activities-in-the-2016-election/2153/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/the-inte... [2] https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/14/hillary-clinton-uranium-one-deal-russia-explainer-244895 https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/14/hillary-clinton-ur... [3] http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-pol-essential-washington-updates-in-house-hearing-even-republicans-are-1510678347-htmlstory.html http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-pol-essenti...

by ruytlm 9y ago

xster 9y ago

I used to read r/politics multiple times a day before it went south right around the time of the Democrat's California primary when the DNC nomination was sealed (on a day when no voters voted and the nomination was determined by poll calls to anonymous super delegates mind you) and the money started flowing https://www.fec.gov/data/disbursements/?two_year_transaction_period=2016&disbursement_purpose_categories=other&data_type=processed&committee_id=C00578997&min_date=03%2F01%2F2016&max_date=09%2F30%2F2016 https://www.fec.gov/data/disbursements/?two_year_transaction... (the FEC site is kinda crap so you'll have to fidget a lot with it). It's anecdotal but I don't think there are any general tone changes from today to since ~June last year. There's a distinct shift in the tone of r/politics. There's a pre-DNC nomination / pre-CTR, pro-Jill Stein, pro-Gary Johnson, pro-Bernie Sanders, anti-Hillary, no-body-cares-about-any-Republicans-because-they're-irrelevant, Democrats-still-nominally-should-represent-working-labor, generally pro grassroots anti hegemonic aristocracy sentiment. A single dimensional left-right axis does huge disservice to clear political discourse but I guess you can say Reddit used to still be representative of the general coastal progressive crowd and it's left-leaning. That is, economically more left-socialistic than a center-right Obama, socially more progressive than a left-leaning Obama, very right-conservative than a very left-interventionist Obama foreign policy, very left-high-social-mobility vs a right-establishment Obama's balance of power. Then there's a hard shift to a pro-Hillary/establishment or you're a sexist/racist/bigot/redneck/Russian spy/religious zealot/white/rural/non college educated strawman dichotomy. I definitely wouldn't say r/politics is left-leaning. See how far you'll get if you want to talk about leftist topics like DAPL opposition, Yemen bombing opposition, Keith Ellison support, Tulsi Gabbard support, single payer support, military budget increase opposition etc. > efforts appeared to be focused on motivating the Republican base to vote for Trump, and to drive Clinton voters to apathy or complacency. Neither of these would be achieved by trying to convince Clinton's fervent supporters on r/politics. Sounds like you're referring to something other than r/politics. What are you referring to?

shostack 9y ago
Please keep in mind that a large part of the election interference from Russia focused on dividing the left. While there was obviously some of that already happening, a big part of the efforts did in fact focus on trying to split the vote of the Left and push people to Bernie/Stein/etc. The efforts don't have to have been purely pro-Trump to have been effective.
- xster 9y ago
  Assume I temporarily freeze all other thoughts and fully accept that there was such a thing as 'election interference from Russia focused on dividing the left', that would be them tossing out their one in a lifetime chance to get a massive foot-gun against their interest instead. More than any high level official, Clinton has a sparkling track record of financial pliability towards Russian interest. A 0.5 million speech for Bill Clinton to a Russian bank was pretty much all it took for 20% of US uranium assets. With insiders like Tony Podesta, a Clinton presidency is like a Russian wet dream. Even Clinton campaign's internal self assessment of their own candidate's relative strengths and weaknesses highlighted her being pretty much a Russian agent as being one of her top vulnerabilities as a candidate. Clinton has her share of hawkish tendencies but only to countries that are principled and didn't bribe her. Unlike the Republicans that are the original neocons and empire builders, Clinton wasn't ideological. Weapons, chemicals, anything was for everyone, Algeria, Egypt, Al-Nusra, Al-Qaeda, anything was for grabs for cheap. Another Republican would have been far more damaging for the Russians whereas a Clinton presidency would have been an extremely rare opportunity.
  - shostack 9y ago
    You only partially quoted me. I said a "large part of their interference," not all of it as your quote implies. It has been confirmed by the intelligence community that a general theme of the interference was that they wanted to ruin Hillary specifically. I suggest you get up to speed on the official findings that have been declassified and released.[1] I also suggest you read up on the Uranium One situation[2] as what you are portraying is very different from what the facts say, and follow a debunked narrative. In fact, in his Wednesday testimony this week, AG Sessions indicated it did not currently merit a special prosecutor due to lack of evidence.[3] If you'd like to continue this debate and making claims, I request that you back them up with credible sources. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/the-intelligence-community-report-on-russian-activities-in-the-2016-election/2153/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/the-inte... [2] https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/14/hillary-clinton-uranium-one-deal-russia-explainer-244895 https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/14/hillary-clinton-ur... [3] http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-pol-essential-washington-updates-in-house-hearing-even-republicans-are-1510678347-htmlstory.html http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-pol-essenti...