U.S. Politics

[Richard Smith]

Why is it, then, that the investigations by Republican Robert Mueller and the Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committe concluded that Putin's intelligence services and his professional St. Petersburg trolls interfered in our election, and did so in an attempt to not only hurt Clinton's campaign, but to get Trump elected?

Why did Putin, when asked in Helsinki if he had wanted Trump to win, said "Yes, I did"?

You mean the 20-30% of the Steele Dossier allegations that GROK says have been proved are actually false, and that another 30-40% which it says are "partially supported by evidence of Russian meddling and Trump orbit contacts" are false, as well?

You are deeply confused.  Even if Russia made attempts to influence the election, there is no evidence that they: 1) colluded with Trump; and 2) had any impact on the election.  There is no evidence that a single vote in any US election was influenced by any Russian influence.  The most significant impact of Russia was that Hillary and the Dems ran with a Russian disinformation campaign. The fact that Putin may have preferred Trump over Hillary is meaningless.  Like Americans, he perhaps realized it is better to have a competent person in office instead of a political robot. 

[Richard Smith]

A magnificent day for Trump and the world with the release of the hostages and the beginning of peace in Israel and Gaza.  History teaches us that many things can go wrong but it is progress.  It is fantastic to see America restored to itself rightful place in the world providing leadership through strength.  None of this would have happened if Old Joe or God forbid Kacklin' Kamala had been elected. 

[Royell Storing]

 "10% for the Big Guy" per Hunter Biden's own lap top is no joke. These people make $$ off of conflict/war. Peace is not profitable for them.

[Lance Payette]

I have a good friend who is the grip of near-terminal Trump Derangement Syndrome. I was thinking this morning that it would be an interesting little experiment to see what negative twist he puts on Trump's Middle East triumph, which pretty much the entire world recognizes as a triumph. Just as I was thinking this, a radio pastor named Jeff Schreve was making the exact same point - i.e., those with full-blown TDS cannot acknowledge ANY accomplishment by Trump. What, I wonder, would be the TDS spin on the Middle East peace?

My own claim to rationality is that I can recognize Trump's accomplishments for what they are and many of his policies as being ones I enthusiastically support while differing from him on others and also recognizing that he's just this side of being of completely nuts and potentially dangerous. I lived through Biden while being somewhat aghast but wishing him the best and recognizing his policies had little to do with my life, and I'm sure I would've lived through a Kamala Presidency without suffering from KDS. I just don't understand the depth of emotional involvement many people seem to have that turns them into cultists in both directions.

My very best friend of 52 years was ready to move to Canada when Trump was elected in 2016. I talked him off the ledge by simply asking, "How much difference has it actually made to your life or my life who the hell the President was?"

[Tom Graves]

I have a good friend who is the grip of near-terminal Trump Derangement Syndrome. I was thinking this morning that it would be an interesting little experiment to see what negative twist he puts on Trump's Middle East triumph, which pretty much the entire world recognizes as a triumph. Just as I was thinking this, a radio pastor named Jeff Schreve was making the exact same point - i.e., those with full-blown TDS cannot acknowledge ANY accomplishment by Trump. What, I wonder, would be the TDS spin on the Middle East peace?

My own claim to rationality is that I can recognize Trump's accomplishments for what they are and many of his policies as being ones I enthusiastically support while differing from him on others and also recognizing that he's just this side of being of completely nuts and potentially dangerous. I lived through Biden while being somewhat aghast but wishing him the best and recognizing his policies had little to do with my life, and I'm sure I would've lived through a Kamala Presidency without suffering from KDS. I just don't understand the depth of emotional involvement many people seem to have that turns them into cultists in both directions.

My very best friend of 52 years was ready to move to Canada when Trump was elected in 2016. I talked him off the ledge by simply asking, "How much difference has it actually made to your life or my life who the hell the President was?"

Dear Fancy Prancer Rants,

Did you believe Trump when he said during the 2016 campaign that he hadn't made fun of the physically handicapped journalist's disability, just pantomimed the act of "groveling"?

If so, you've got a bad case of Donald J. Trump Flatulence Infatuation.

-- Tom

[Tom Graves]

You are deeply confused.

That's a suggestion I refuse to accept.

Even if Russia made attempts to influence the election . . .

"Even if"?

LOL!

There is no evidence that the Russians 1) colluded with Trump, or 2) had any impact on the election. There is no evidence that a single vote in any US election was influenced by any Russian influence.

Regarding "collusion," just for fun google the names Stone, Schlanger, and Caddy simultaneously.

. . . . . . .

ME: Are there any academics who say Putin’s hackers and professional trolls helped put Trump in the White House in 2017?

GROK: Kathleen Hall Jamieson, the Elizabeth Ware Packard Professor of Communication at the University of Pennsylvania and director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center, has argued that Putin’s hackers and professional trolls helped put Trump in the White House in 2017. In her 2018 book Cyberwar: How Russian Hackers and American Voters Helped Elect a President, Jamieson's forensic analysis of online activity, leaked emails, and disinformation campaigns concludes that the coordinated release of hacked Democratic materials — amplified by IRA trolls on social media — directly caused measurable drops in Hillary Clinton's poll numbers in key swing states during the final weeks of the campaign. She specifically ties IRA troll activity to suppressing Black voter turnout and boosting anti-Clinton sentiment, estimating that these efforts shifted voter intentions enough to flip the Electoral College outcome by exploiting narrow margins (e.g., under 80,000 votes across Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin). In interviews and her Washington Post op-ed, Jamieson stated that the "wide distribution" of troll-driven disinformation "increases the likelihood" it "changed the outcome," effectively asserting that without it, Trump would have lost.

Other academics have provided supporting evidence of IRA trolls' influence but stop short of claiming the election hinged on them. For instance:

A 2019 University of Tennessee study led by Damian Ruck found that IRA retweets predicted 1% poll gains for Trump per 25,000 weekly retweets, suggesting trolls "swayed U.S. opinion toward Trump."

A 2022 Columbia University study by researchers including Salvatore Barbaro and Austin Carson used betting market data to show IRA activity during non-holiday periods "moved the needle toward President Trump," with reduced trolling on Russian holidays correlating to dips in Trump's odds—implying interference was causal in his narrow victory.

A 2023 NYU study by Joshua Tucker and colleagues found exposure to IRA content was concentrated among Republicans and did not broadly change voting behavior, though it may have reinforced partisan divides.

ME: Not to be redundant, but is Kathleen Hall Jamieson the only academic who says Trump would have lost the 2016 election if not for the help of Putin's professional trolls?

GROK: No, Kathleen Hall Jamieson is not the only academic making this claim. While her 2018 book Cyberwar: How Russian Hackers and Trolls Helped Elect a President provides one of the most detailed forensic analyses arguing that Russian disinformation (including troll operations) likely tipped the scales in Trump's favor by influencing key voter turnout and perceptions in swing states, several other scholars have reached similar conclusions based on empirical studies of social media data, polling shifts, and betting market fluctuations.

Key Examples of Other Academics

Here's a summary of notable academics whose research supports the idea that Russian troll activity (part of broader disinformation efforts) contributed decisively to Trump's 2016 win:

Douglas Almond, Xinming Du, and Alana Vogel at Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs analyzed betting market data and determined that Republican odds dipped and Democrat odds peaked during Russian holidays when Putin’s trolls were less active.

Darren Linvill and Patrick Warren at Clemson analyzed 770,000 Russian troll tweets and found a correlation: Every 25,000 retweets from troll accounts boosted Trump's poll numbers by about 1%, suggesting trolls shifted public opinion enough to affect the outcome.

Yochai Benkler, Robert Faris, and Hal Roberts at Harvard’s Kennedy School and the University of Delaware argued that Russian trolls amplified existing U.S. right-wing networks, exacerbating polarization and aiding Trump's victory; while not solely crediting Russia, they describe it as "icing on a cake" that helped secure the win.

Jonathan Albright at Columbia University’s Tow Center for Digital Media determined that trolls generated content shared 340 million times, with most pro-Trump promoters being paid Russian operatives; this scale implies meaningful sway in battleground states.         
         

The most significant impact of Russia was that Hillary and the Dems ran with a Russian disinformation campaign.

The KGB* has been so successful over the past sixty-six years in its waging of disinformation, "active measures," and mole-based strategic deception counterintelligence operations against us and out NATO allies that you actually believe that.

Do you think it's just a coincidence that Trump retained as his campaign manager a colleague of Roger Stone who, with the help of an undercover GRU officer, had helped a pro-Putin politician win the presidency of Ukraine?

Do you think it's just a coincidence that within hours of Trump's saying, "Russia, if you're listening . . . ," Putin's hackers sent phishing emails to accounts at a domain used by Clinton's personal office and targeted 76 email addresses on the domain used by the Clinton campaign?

Do you think it's just a coincidence that Roger Stone knew in advance that John Podesta's emails would by dumped onto social media by Wikileaks? 

I could go on and on . . .

What say you, Comrade Molotov / Herr Schicklgruber?

*Today's SVR and FSB