Internet Marketing – Why Is This Smelly Fish Priceless? (updated)

February 19, 2018

[Updated below]

After I promoted Saturday's piece about the Mueller indictment on Twitter some seemingly automated accounts retweeted my promotion.

The original piece is about an internet marketing scheme that is supposed to have influenced U.S. elections. It is thus amusing that the retweeting bots are part of an internet marketing scheme that is supposed to influence U.S. elections.

But why do they use the line "Omg. Fish is priceless"?

My original tweet:

source – bigger

The automated(?) retweets:

source – bigger

[Update – 12:50 EST]

Commentators pointed out:

1. The first retweet shown above, which introduced the 'fish' line, is from a real person. Debbie Lusigman, the @saneprogessive, who has her own video channel with lots of legit content. The other tweets though are copies (not regular retweets) of the first retweet.
(h/t oldandyoung and integer)

2. The other personalities are likely bots that may well be run by one Scott Dworkin, a grifter who runs the fundraising campaign Democratic Coalition and channels most of the funds to a company he owns. Geoff Miami found the connection and reported on it at Progressive Army.
(h/t Demeter)

Posted by b on February 19, 2018 at 12:36 UTC | Permalink

Comments

Algorithms gone mad? So much for AI…

Posted by: Lea | Feb 19 2018 12:42 utc | 1

The only thing that comes to mind is that automated software mis-identified your image?
This is hilarious but way creepy. That they can, that they would, and that they would be “caught” so easily by their copycat style.
Or it’s just to troll you, which is kind of a compliment.

Posted by: david | Feb 19 2018 12:52 utc | 2

b – I think the phrase about the fish is meant to be a compliment because the “fish” looks like a real sock puppet, which is how these accounts are referred to by many people. Weird American idiom.

Posted by: John Zelnicker | Feb 19 2018 13:07 utc | 3

But why do they use the line “Omg. Fish is priceless”?
My guess…
It’s not a fish. It’s a Fish Head – Mueller’s.
Folklore says that a fish rots from the head.
And the MoA brief-but-accurate translation of the reams of drivel masquerading as evidence in the ‘indictment’ exposes Mueller’s conclusion as a stinker.
Imo, this suggests that AI is getting smarter…

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Feb 19 2018 13:07 utc | 4

(Thoughts of re-Tweeters while typing…)
Must…not…self-identify…as…a…sock-puppet…
Drats!…sock-puppet…is…a…fish!
Drats!…baited…hooked…landed!
I…am…a…fish!

Posted by: nudge | Feb 19 2018 13:16 utc | 5

Dems used to rightly hate Mueller for the Patriot Act, for abusing Fisa and for setting up terrorism hoaxes – now they love him. Sick.

Posted by: paul | Feb 19 2018 13:34 utc | 6

But why do they use the line “Omg. Fish is priceless”?
because they are not re-tweeting your post from MOA – they are re-tweeting @saneprogressive’s re-tweet of your MOA post.
stats for @saneprogressive
Debbie Lusignan – @saneprogressive

Followers 17,100

stats for MOA

Followers 7,241

The bot has twice the influence of MOA, according to Twitter – the fact that the majority of followers of @saneprogressive’s account are likely to be fellow bots is deliberately not factored in to Twitter’s methods of measuring “influence”(followers)

Posted by: Bobby Mueller | Feb 19 2018 13:38 utc | 7

Well, if it’s a Russian bot, it’s algorithm could have somehow garbled “This is priceless.” Just a thought, maybe I’m wrong. 🙂

Posted by: Mister Roboto | Feb 19 2018 13:42 utc | 8

on the internet, no one knows you’re a fish

Posted by: roflmaousse | Feb 19 2018 13:47 utc | 9

If everyone, especially advertisers, but also Twitter users themselves, properly understood how the game is played, Twitter’s share price would probably fall to zero.
https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/twitter#section-funding-rounds
Twitter Lead Investors:

Dec 20, 2011 – $300M – Alwaleed Bin Talal
Aug 2, 2011 – $400M – DST Global
Dec 15, 2010 – $200M – Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers

FYI: Alwaleed Bin Talal is listed as “Prince, Saudi Royal Family” – https://www.crunchbase.com/person/alwaleed-bin-talal

Posted by: Bobby Mueller | Feb 19 2018 13:54 utc | 10

I think Debbie appreciated the humor in your original tweet…and the bots picked her up from there…

Posted by: oldenyoung | Feb 19 2018 14:04 utc | 11

How does Twitter make money?

One research firm, eMarketer, estimates that Twitter’s revenues from advertising sales will increase by more than 100% by the end of this year [2013].
‘Native’ marketing
Almost all of Twitter’s revenue – about 85% of it – comes from advertising on its site.
There are three main ways for a company or an individual to advertise on Twitter: by promoting a tweet that will appear in people’s timelines, promoting a whole account, or promoting a trend.
Only last week Twitter changed the way posts are displayed in the timeline feed, allowing photos and video previews to appear without needing to click on a link – a move some analysts say will help advertisers to better show off their content.
Twitter tends to charge its advertisers according to the amount of interaction their content generates.
A budget is usually set at the start of the campaign and then the advertiser pays per click or per retweet.
It also has a “bidding” system in which advertisers compete with each other to have their content appear in a particular space.

What percentage of Twitter accounts are actually Bots?
A business models based on bots retweeting bots retweeting Bots – it seems to be mostly Bots all the way down
After 10 years Twitter just reported its first profitable quarter ever, but didn’t add any new users in Q4
Peak Twitter?

Posted by: Bobby Mueller | Feb 19 2018 14:06 utc | 12

Fish is phosphorus!
Phosphorus is mind enhancer!
AI recognizes his weakness and craves for intelligence doping.
Doping is Russian.
AI retweets about Russians because it needs to learn more about doping!
Phosphorus is priceless!
El Fallujah is endless!

Posted by: Arioch | Feb 19 2018 14:09 utc | 13

Twitter tends to charge its advertisers according to the amount of interaction their content generates.
A budget is usually set at the start of the campaign and then the advertiser pays per click or per retweet.

Wouldn’t FBI/Mueller-time be better spent investigating Twitter for possibly de-frauding it’s advertisers?

Posted by: Bobby Mueller | Feb 19 2018 14:10 utc | 14

My first thought was in the lines of John Z. above. The figure is a fish (or terribly fish-like) and smartly, extravagantly colorful, like some priceless Japanese fish, koi. These can cost the earth and there are competitions etc.
There was also a popular reddit post with a priceless fish face, which became a meme, mildly funny:
http://twistedsifter.com/2013/11/fish-wish-diver-makes-funny-face/
Imho these words/ideas/memes become melded and confused through automation (see others above.)

Posted by: Noirette | Feb 19 2018 14:41 utc | 15

Hahahaha. Agree with oldenyoung @ 10 though. Sane progressive aka Debbie Lusignan is legit afaik. Here is her YouTube channel.

Posted by: integer | Feb 19 2018 15:09 utc | 16

“fish” was meant to be “this,” but with fat fingers and spell-check . . .

Posted by: zakukommander | Feb 19 2018 15:18 utc | 17

Most of the re-twitter accounts have “Bernie2020” tag. Are they try to send out some kind of promotion message?
integer @15
Thanks for that lovely photo! It makes me laugh! 😀

Posted by: mali | Feb 19 2018 15:23 utc | 18

I’m confused. The ICYMI facebook page has been going for a month or so.
It does exactly what the Russian bots are accused of, raising political issues and mocking one side or as often both sides. Perhaps more UK based than US based though.
A lot like the more humourous RT posts do (which also find their way into my timeline – not complaining I click on a lot of them).
How come it hasn’t been brought down yet?
And when is the Onion going to be indicted for being funny and spotting absurdities.

Posted by: michael d | Feb 19 2018 15:25 utc | 19

Algorithms gone mad? So much for AI…
Posted by: Lea | Feb 19, 2018 7:42:17 AM | 1
Frankly, I would be proud if my picture recognition program would recognize that the monster is a fish. Remember, the task is to classify pictures according to some preconceived categories. And as a human, I have hard time proposing something better. Sure, it is a sock puppet, but a sock puppet of what? So the algorithm figured (1) fish and (2) cute. Not bad at all.
The tag is more questionable, is it even English?
The concerted “crowd reaction” is indeed failing the Turing test. Is the purpose of making Bernie look good or bad? Or no purpose at all, just automated “persona building”?

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Feb 19 2018 15:38 utc | 20

More seriously. The Russkies, e.g. Zakharova and Lavrov have said that the USA has gone mad, is in the grip of a crazed delusional hysteria (or words to that effect.) Why the hype?
1) Are we to see all this nonsense as merely an internal US matter, with the Dems planning an attack on Trump before he was elected, and subsequently promoting Russia as a blanket external enemy – as they can’t accuse the Republicans, Banks or Big Corps, need an outside bogey, though they have post hoc also blamed the electorate, not smart.
Neatly fitting with that Trump did propose ‘good’ (…) relations with Russia, in an attempt to actually conserve some, or even a major part, of US hegemony in the new ‘multipolar’ world. (Trump wanted to control and ‘annex’ the weaker partner, not a bad calculation.)
>> Russia is merely a mythical figure, breathing fire and red-clawed, in the wings, invisible, serving as a prop for the major contestants.
Naturally, ordinary US citizens are of no account beyond their role as potentially duped followers, adherents, minions, serfs, ciphers on a page, etc. Influencing opinion(s) the most efficiently is part of the competition, actualised through media, TV, internet, etc. etc.
2) The USA is *for real* gearing up for a meltdown war, against Russia in first place, and all the Media hype is aimed at getting US, NATO citizens to support it, or at least sleep in front of the TV and not object, and/or be controlled by various entities. The US PTB will never accept its loss of power/status and will destroy the world in a nukulear storm before it gives up.
Between 1-2 many intermediary scenarios exist.
?? – Sincere qu.

Posted by: Noirette | Feb 19 2018 15:40 utc | 21

OMG you broke the internet!

Posted by: Covergirl | Feb 19 2018 15:45 utc | 22

hard to resist a picture of an adorable sock puppet, lol. obviously the copies are of someone else’s link to the original twitter feed. if i were to guess, some of the copies could be aggregators for open source intel project(s)

Posted by: b real | Feb 19 2018 15:47 utc | 23

“Omg. Fish is priceless”? – goes with the picture and draws people’s attention in… basic marketing is to arouse curiousity…

Posted by: james | Feb 19 2018 16:47 utc | 24

@saneprogressive is a real account; the rest appear to be bots. The bots RT some posts and appropriate others as their own. For instance, another one of @saneprogressives posts was also posted by @SenWarren2020 as its own yesterday. These are simple bots that attach themselves to certain accounts that have been deemed to be in the right ideological sphere, one suspects.

Posted by: WorldBLee | Feb 19 2018 16:58 utc | 25

I know those bots. @GeoffMiami has called them out as accounts controlled by Scott Dowrkin (@funder) and his “resistance organization” The Dem Coalition (@TheDemCoalition). “They hope to grift off Bernie supporters by using Bernie-themed bot accounts to push their propaganda.”
More here – exposing Dworkin as a grifter Resistance Grift – How Scott Dworkin Turned the Resistance into a Personal Payday

Dworkin’s Super PAC promotes fear through a repeating cycle of Russian-based propaganda, which garners donations, which pay consultants that generate those stories over and over again, garnering yet more donations. As to what purpose his Super PAC actually serves, it appears to be little more than a Möbius strip of self-serving opportunism.

Posted by: Demeter | Feb 19 2018 17:01 utc | 26

@Bobby Mueller @6
“because they are not re-tweeting your post from MOA – they are re-tweeting @saneprogressive’s re-tweet of your MOA post.”
No – the 2nd to 8th account are not “retweeting” the 1st. They copied and reposted its content.
If those were legit one click “retweets” a la normal Twitter it would says so (XYZ retweeted ABC) and lock different. The form they used as shown above would require several clicks to 1. go to my original tweet, 2. retweet that with comment, 3. type (or copy) the fish line, 4. send.
These are for sure bots running on some script.

Posted by: b | Feb 19 2018 17:16 utc | 27

I am not sure that I have taken enough of the right drugs but here goes
1. The retweets are secret messages from “saneprogressive” that bots are trained to retweet so others know to read your posting as it is priceless
2. The retweets are NSA manipulation to deprecate and make light of your posting by making it unserious
3. Twitter/NSA has developed bots behind the scene to manipulate public focus and it is just coming out of Beta testing
4. Some blogs have weekly cat pictures but this is clear evidence that MoA needs to have at least weekly sock puppet pictures.
5. All this focus on sock puppets and fish on America’s president’s day is unpatriotic and taking focus away from the current president’s tweets which cannot be tolerated.
6. If this fish is so priceless, why is it stealing focus from humanity’s more pressing problems like determining if this persons G in OMG is the same as that persons G in their OMG
It is just at freezing in Portland OR with a light dusting of snow from last night on all but the roads and the sun is shining…..Happy day/life to all!

Posted by: psychohistorian | Feb 19 2018 18:00 utc | 28

@all –
I updated the piece above with the information provided by oldandyoung, integer, and Demeter.
Thanks folks!

Posted by: b | Feb 19 2018 18:00 utc | 29

This is an absolutely hilarious illustration of your argument. While I don’t think the argument that the Internet Research Agency was a marketing endeavor is conclusive, it certainly is a compelling explanation, especially given the ridiculous nature of the content that it produced. It’s like everyone simply ignored the fact that there are gazillions of these click-harvesting schemes and that the 2016 election, being a perpetual internet outrage machine, was especially fertile ground for them. They all (probably deliberately) ignored the reporting about, say, the Macedonian bullshit farm, which was generating mostly pro-Trump posts in order to harvest clicks. https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/how-macedonia-became-a-global-hub-for-pro-trump-misinfo?utm_term=.ynwo9nn2#.rvBVyoo3

Posted by: Sebastian Dangerfield | Feb 19 2018 18:57 utc | 30

As already Aristotle pointed out logic will not give you truth but logic is the only way to discover the truth if applied to a reasoning method of syllogism that for truthful outcome requires factually true input. As Aristotle also pointed out all of that search for truth must be divorced from any ethical or moral system or any type of individual or group benefit otherwise it is nothing but sophistry goal seeking mental embellishment to confuse public as is this Orwellian McCarthyism run on all sides of this political farce Orwell directly and precisely wrote about in 1984 not particularly about Stalinist Russia.
The fact is that about 20% of population supported Hillary mostly because of their perceived direct financial benefit to them and like infants they will hold to any nonsense to hold on to their bottle of goodies, MSM using that to fuel divisions, confusion and conflict among americans so they do not focus on what needs to be done, overthrowing this abhorrent US regime no good for 90% of population.

Posted by: Kalen | Feb 19 2018 20:40 utc | 31

Scratching my head to figure out the attraction to Facebook and Twitter, both nothing more than gossip and advertising rags.
Read a F###’en book people. At least you can research the author, and determine where he/ or she is coming from.
A nation/people get the kind of Gov. they deserve…

Posted by: ben | Feb 19 2018 20:50 utc | 32

The sock puppet does look a bit like a fish and maybe Debbie Lusignan saw a pun in there that is lost on the bots retweeting her Tweet.
“Fish” is good for “fishing” and “phishing” = collecting clicks (and possibly personal information attached to metadata generated by clicks) to forward on to third parties willing to pay for that information.

Posted by: Jen | Feb 19 2018 21:02 utc | 33

I have been tweeting your article, not the fish picture, frequently, as I am tired of even supporters of Trump spouting a false narrative. #IamnotaRussianbot or bot of any sort, just a human who wants to pass on the excellent info you wrote. I hope it gets new followers to your blog!

Posted by: Kat C | Feb 19 2018 22:12 utc | 34

I’ve been following Debbie Lusignan since early in the 2015/2016 Primaries. She was a Bernie supporter who documented the election fraud better than any other source. She has since come to see Bernie as a sell-out at least, if not a sheep dog from the start. And her focus since has been on discarding the “right/left paradigm” and joining in common causes against the global, plutocratic, warmongering powers.
I’ve posted links to MoA articles on her sites several times, so maybe her following b is my fault. 😉
This is her Twitter feed:
https://twitter.com/saneprogressive

Posted by: Daniel | Feb 19 2018 22:31 utc | 35

OT, but I trust many will find this interesting:
BBC is disinforming their readers again today, when they wrote:
“Syria shot down a Turkish fighter plane in 2012, killing two crew.”
In reality, it was Turkey that shot down a Syrian jet over Syrian airspace, which allegedly had momentarily crossed into Turkish airspace while turning around after completing a bombing run. Then, Turkic “rebels” shot the crew as they parachuted to the ground, and gleefully posted online videos of them committing that war crime. A war crime the “rebels” attempted again when the Russian jet was shot down recently.
BBC knows this, and I cannot ascribe it to a typo since these “errors” always and only go in one direction. This is deliberate propaganda for the masses.
It still looks to me like we’re being “perception managed” about this Turkey/Kurd/US “conflict.” Just as the Syrian forces were setting up to retake Idlib province from the south, the US announced it was creating a “Border Security Force” of Kurdish fighters along Turkey’s border. This gave Erdogan the excuse to invade Syria from Idlib’s north side, ostensibly to “defend” itself from Kurdish fighters. Of course Kurdish fighters have been patrolling (and crossing) that border for 5 years, so nothing had really changed.
But Assad has been negotiating with Kurdish leaders all along, trying to pave the way for Kurdish “rebels” to stop their treasonous actions and rejoin the Syrian Republic, and it looks like this Turkish invasion may actually be facilitating such reconciliation.
Still, as I asked when Turkey first invaded, what will happen when/if the Syrian Arab Army reaches the Turkish military? Would a conflict between an invading NATO member and the country defending itself from Turkish aggression trigger Article Five? That is, will all of NATO be given the green light to destroy Syria?

Posted by: Daniel | Feb 19 2018 22:47 utc | 36

Debbie is just saying the fish/sock puppet is cute/priceless. People like cute even if they are political. Lusignan appears constantly on the Jimmy Dore Show and they’ve been anti-Russiagate since the DNC first claimed they were hacked by the dreaded Rooskis.

Posted by: Liberal Mole | Feb 19 2018 23:22 utc | 37

“Syria shot down a Turkish fighter plane in 2012, killing two crew.”
For once the BBC is actually correctly reporting events
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Turkish_F-4_Phantom_shootdown
My memory of events was The Syrians were using an older Air defence system but the targeting system had been upgraded by the russians – Wiki reports the shootdown “was done in coordination with the Russian naval facility in Tartus”.

Posted by: Bobby Mueller | Feb 19 2018 23:44 utc | 38

Yes, there was a disputed report of a Turkish jet shot down by Syria “by accident” in 2012.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9349777/Syria-shoots-down-Turkish-fighter-jet.html
I was thinking about the 2014 shoot down of a Syrian jet by Turkey.
https://www.cnn.com/2014/03/23/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html
Then there was the Russian jet shot down by Turkey in 2015.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russian-pilot-who-survived-warplane-being-shot-down-by-turkey-claims-jet-was-given-no-warning-a6748371.html
Many provocations with NATO member, Turkey. Any thoughts on what might happen when Syrian and Turkish forces face off?
ps. I do NOT read wikipedia unless I wish to know what BS is being fed to the masses.

Posted by: Daniel | Feb 20 2018 0:31 utc | 39

Thats a very strange and roundabout way of admitting you were wrong.
There was no “disputed report” as far as I remember both sides admitted it occurred.
It was the first test of Syrian air defences by the Turks, and their F15 fared very badly against an much older generation air defence system.
I don’t suppose they or their NATO pals were too happy about old russian tech beating the crap out of more recent US tech

Posted by: Bobby Mueller | Feb 20 2018 0:49 utc | 40

Posted by: Bobby Mueller | Feb 20 2018 0:49 utc | 41

Demeter@26
“Resistance Grift – How Scott Dworkin Turned the Resistance into a Personal Payday”
So he’s kind of like the IRA chef?

Posted by: daffyDuct | Feb 20 2018 1:42 utc | 42

… IRA chef?
A
Meaning, someone who prepares Irish delicacies for Republican bigwigs? And of course, hostile to Trump on the account of hating the orange color.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Feb 20 2018 1:57 utc | 43

Bobby, I apologize for not being contrite enough for your tastes, but if you read the article I posted on the Turkish jet downing (which I did not recall), you’ll understand why I specified “disputed.” Erdogan himself disputed Erdogan. lol.
And yes, having Syria’s Vietnam War era AA systems taking out even more modern fighter jets than that F4 must be embarrassing to both the countries’ air forces and the jet sales people.
But you don’t care to consider what will happen when the SAA confronts the Turks in Syria? The SAA moving in to Afrin in support of the Kurds has gone from rumor to official announcement in Syrian media.
I don’t know if you’ve been around here since Turkey began their “Operation Olive Branch,” but I’ve been concerned the story we’re told has been subterfuge from the start, and that forcing a confrontation between a NATO state and the SAA was the goal all along.

Posted by: Daniel | Feb 20 2018 4:33 utc | 44

LOL Piotr Berman. The best puns are the accidental ones.
Sinn Fein is campaigning hard in Northern Ireland right now. They point out that Brexit is in contradiction to the Good Friday Agreement that ended “the troubles.” It would be remarkably ironic if Brexit ended up leading to a unified Ireland.

Posted by: Daniel | Feb 20 2018 4:37 utc | 45

I might be dense, definitely am in the pun department, but this fish allusion leaves me baffled. What does that mean?

Posted by: ToivoS | Feb 20 2018 5:01 utc | 46

@21 Noirette

The US PTB will never accept its loss of power/status and will destroy the world in a nukulear storm before it gives up.

My sentiments exactly. Meanwhile Putin and Lavrov still refer to the western nutjobs plotting their demise as “partners” and “colleagues”.

Posted by: Temporarily Sane | Feb 20 2018 5:26 utc | 47

@21 Noirette

The US PTB will never accept its loss of power/status and will destroy the world in a nukulear storm before it gives up.

My sentiments exactly. Meanwhile Putin and Lavrov still refer to the western nutjobs plotting their demise as “partners” and “colleagues”.

Posted by: Temporarily Sane | Feb 20 2018 5:26 utc | 48

seems like the original twitter account is legit and sincere, maybe an inside joke or just somethng lost in translation.

Posted by: pB | Feb 20 2018 5:39 utc | 49

It was an occident.

Posted by: foo | Feb 20 2018 6:17 utc | 50

Well, heck, I’m assuming that b doesn’t own that sock-puppet and that really isn’t b’s hand up its arse.
So I’m guessing that it is a stock-photo pulled from somewhere in the Internet.
In which case it is meant to be the Muppet-personification of….. something.
It doesn’t look like a human.
It definitely isn’t a cow or a bird.
Maybe it is meant to be a caricature of an alien from the Planet Koozbaine.
Or maybe, just maybe, it was originally intended to be a caricature of a vivid tropical fish.
In which case Debbie would be very, very perceptive. Or very, very mistaken.
One or the other, but either way her comment makes sense, sorta….

Posted by: Yeah, Right | Feb 20 2018 6:57 utc | 51

@21 re: Are we to see all this nonsense as merely an internal US matter, with the Dems planning an attack on Trump before he was elected….
Read The Federalist
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-17/media-stopped-reporting-russia-collusion-story-because-they-helped-create-it
While filled with stereotypical “Putin eats christian babies” nonsense, it has a nice insight about development of the dead-end american MSM locked itself in unexpectedly.

Posted by: Arioch | Feb 20 2018 9:49 utc | 52

A good way to disappear up yer own arsehole is to devote any time or energy debating who said what to whom about yerself.
I believe it to be worse than pointless and certain to create the sort of negativity likely to undermine the work you’re trying to succeed at than deliver that ‘any publicity is good publicity’ outcome.
Over the course of my existence, like most other white males, I can claim a few minor ‘celebrities’ among my circle of acquaintances; I only mention that because I have noticed that the ones who stay in their game the longest (generally acting or music) are the ones who make a point of never reading reviews or gossip columns. And no, mostly these types don’t have/cannot afford a publicist who does all that heavy lifting, they just prefer to ignore that shit, cos humans are humans and put more energy into negativity than compliments (unless they want something).
One once notorious mate told me that reading about himself is pretty much the same as eavesdropping – you only learn stuff you wish you hadn’t and besides 90% of it is nonsense about as far from truth as you can get.
Social media would have to be the most insidious since ‘the right of reply’ is provided by a small button – deliberately since these social networks are run by parasites whose income depends upon the back and forth of disputatious interactions which soon corrall popcorn munching voyeurs.
People talk shit when they’re feeling bored, frustrated or envious, it is just too easy for any human to get drawn into nonsense which is only very superficially about oneself.

Posted by: Debsisdead | Feb 20 2018 12:10 utc | 53

Mainstream columnist Byron York is suspicious of the Mueller spin regarding the Russian espionage program. In both his column and his interview on Tucker Carlson he noticed a contradiction between Mueller’s claim that the Russians concentrating on ‘purple states’.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-a-non-alarmist-reading-of-the-mueller-russia-indictment/article/2649445

“Looking at key states, the total spent on ads targeting Wisconsin was $1,979, according to Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Richard Burr. Ad spending in Michigan was $823. In Pennsylvania, it was $300.”

It’s good to see some skepticism of the FBI, as opposed to the blatant flag waving of Chuck Todd who tweeted, “how are we going to punish Russia”
Good God. Welcome to Bizzaro earth where Journalists wave the flag and citizens are the ones questioning govt institutions.

Posted by: Christian Chuba | Feb 20 2018 12:47 utc | 54

Brexit will also eventually lead to a re-run of the Scottish independence referendum. One of the major arguments against it was that Scotland would be stranded outside the EU with no guarantee of being let back in.

Posted by: ralphieboy | Feb 20 2018 14:14 utc | 55

Arioch @ 52. Piece in zero hedge gives some +++ arguments for a sort of hapless runaway prop. effort that meanders, circulates, serves some purposes but then who knows what… Reminiscent of high school gossip, rumors, accusations, stern enquiries, with even gasp! the police involved, some expulsions.. I agree that ambiance or aspect exists, but that in itself is a form of cover-up, i.e. attacks are not TOO solid and can be backpedalled with ‘supposed mistakes’, ‘a bad apple operative’, corruption from xyz, etc.
In my view, a deliquescent, failing empire is often subject to fights to the death at the top in Stage One (see KSA for another, more speedy and open version.)
In the USA such weakness, manifested in banana republic events, has to be cached; the myth of sanctity of democracy, freedom, probity, righteousness and domination thru superiority on inferiors must be upheld. So, an external enemy (Russia) became a focus, no internal one could serve. Yet, the choice is not innocent.

Posted by: Noirette | Feb 20 2018 16:00 utc | 56

Debbie Lusignan is worth following. She has a very logical mind and speaks the truth…..

Posted by: georgeg | Feb 20 2018 18:20 utc | 57

@ ToivoS
I might be dense, definitely am in the pun department, but this fish allusion leaves me baffled. What does that mean?
It is a sock puppet that looks like a fish. Urban dictionary defines sock puppet as “A false identity adopted by trolls and other malcontents to support their own postings.”

Posted by: dan of steele | Feb 20 2018 18:37 utc | 58

Mildly OT, but, relevant none the less
“Why is a Russian Troll Farm Being Compared to 9/11?”
From TRNN: http://therealnews.com/t2/story:21178:Why-is-a-Russian-Troll-Farm-Being-Compared-to-911%3F

Posted by: ben | Feb 20 2018 18:59 utc | 59

#58 dan of steele
Thanks for that. But I remain baffled. What does that fish refer to?

Posted by: ToivoS | Feb 21 2018 2:23 utc | 60

@60 toivos – the sockpuppet looks like a fish to some..

Posted by: james | Feb 21 2018 2:33 utc | 61

Haven’t read all these comments but in case no one answered the question: Assuming “fish” refers to a sock puppet, it is priceless, i.e., a terrific image and use of image. I.e., very funny.

Posted by: Robert Roth | Feb 21 2018 3:28 utc | 62

How about something being ‘fishy’?
Welcome to the modern world.
Where a Muppet fish gets a shitload of
attention. Miss Piggy would certainly
envy that fishy.
Under the radar goes the fact that
everything is transformed into
surreality, into ridicule, leaving
nothing to make sense.
The remaining synapses smolder away
in the attempt to make sense out of
nonsense.
A remake of the Descrete Charme of
the Burgeoisie on a very large scale
and the middle class is going up in
smoke.

Posted by: nottheonly1 | Feb 21 2018 5:34 utc | 63

Hey b, both Eva Bartlett and James Corbett are tweeting links to your article on the Russian Troll Farm. Congratulations!

Posted by: Daniel | Feb 21 2018 7:08 utc | 64

You’re being retweeted by the Russian influence bots you don’t think exist, dummy.

Posted by: dave | Feb 23 2018 3:33 utc | 65

Well, golly, that fish is really cute. Which, I suspect, was the intended meaning of “priceless” in the original retweet. In other words, it reduced the effort to draw attention to your analysis to drawing attention to your image in a manner that was guaranteed to ensure no one would read all that small print in the background.
Deflection 101.

Posted by: Elizabeth Burton | Feb 28 2018 22:13 utc | 66

very good and spcial thanks
telegram income

Posted by: ali | Mar 19 2018 1:12 utc | 67

Back to Main